Welcome

Please register for Total War Access to use the forums. If you're an existing user, your forum details will be merged with Total War Access if you register with the same email or username. For more information please read our FAQ’s here.

Categories

Are you interested in the other Total War titles/Current State of the community?

vie_dragonvie_dragon Posts: 155Registered Users
edited September 2018 in Total War General Chat
Hello Community!

This place has gotten quite hostile! Last time I checked in here people were wildly speculating about various things concerning the game and discussing different units :)
After having read different discussions on here, Reddit and 4chan it seems the Community is actually mad at each other?
With Warhammer Fans and History Fans hating each other because Warhammer sold so well in the beginning putting History titles on hiatus and now the exact opposite with CA trying to push Three Kingdoms and Thrones of Britania.

I don't understand.

My question here is if you guys are solely interested in the Total War: Warhammer series or if you also like the other games. For me, I don't care about the other titles at all but I also don't mind CA shifting the focus to history titles again because it's basically what got us Warhammer and how the franchise started.

I'd like to know why people are so **** off at basically everything. CA has gotten quiet the past few months and suddenly everybody hates them? It's not likely CA will abandon either Warhammer or History titles because both make them money. The Tomb Kings DLC sold well. I don't know about the sales of TK and ToB though just that they are not comparable to the gigantic sales of the first Total War: Warhammer.

tl;dr:
There seems to be a huge community **** going on and I basically want to get back into the picture because I have recently started a Norsca campaign after GITTING GUD and I'm having tons of fun. During loading times I like to read the forums and all I find is hate and a couple of WHERE IS GHORGON posts :D
«13

Comments

  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Posts: 9,917Registered Users
    I am interested in 3K. I was cautious about Tob because I'm completely burnt out of how the R2 engine fights battles. Then when that information about how dumbed down and easy it was came to light I never purchased it, and never will It was a rather expensive R2 barbarian simulator.



    They put Warhammer on the back-burner(the title that saved their franchise). CA chose to invest resources into their games that nearly killed their franchise(R2, Attila). And a game that has a 50% approval rating.

    They could have put all those resources into Warhammer, still done 3K and R2 copy paste DLC's and everyone would be happy.


    I'm sick of people calling out the community for CA's blunders.
    "As a sandbox game everyone, without exception, should be able to play the game exactly as they see fit and that means providing the maximum scope possible." - ~UNiOnJaCk~
  • TennisgolfbollTennisgolfboll Posts: 6,845Registered Users
    I like the idea of a game set in Romance of the three kingdoms by CA.

    But what they have shown has made me pretty sure it is not good enough for me.

    Warhammer is just amazing. An incredible game. So much lore, races, mechanics etc

    Thrones of Britannia held less interest for me. But i gave them a shot and viewed a few of their early marketing. I immediately saw it was not for me.

    I will give CA the chance to show me their future products but i doubt they will interest me.

    I can imagine WH40k being awesome.

    Or even Star Wars (though Disney sure has destroyed it).

    It will take a much greater commitment from CA to compete with warhammer in the future then what they have so far.

    I think this will be (warhammer trilogy) CAs greatest work and they will not make something as great again.

    Read all my replies as if we are having a pint and a good old time. I will always read your reply like that.
  • thebiglezthebiglez Posts: 558Registered Users
    i played almost all the TW titles, and i thought TWW is gonna be really bad.
    But not im only intrested in TWW and dont care about rome / attila / 3K
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Posts: 2,049Registered Users
    edited September 2018
    Personally, I enjoy both the Fantasy games and Historical games.

    The Warhammer games are fantastic Total War games, no doubt there (probably the best in the series); but I just prefer the Historical games more, because I really enjoy history. If I played the Warhammer Tabletop or read the books, I might prefer the Warhammer games over history.

    Honestly, I really don't understand this community spat. Some people prefer the Historical games, others prefer the Warhammer games, and both parties are annoyed that the other group's games are seemingly getting preferential treatment at the expense of theirs?

    Seems a bit daft and more than a little silly to me.
    Post edited by Whiskeyjack_5691 on
  • ArsenicArsenic Posts: 4,094Registered Users
    Can only speak for myself here, obviously.

    Much like the fans of Age of Sigmar, I wish fans of historical content well, and have no wish for their franchises to fail, even if they don't interest me.

    Regarding Warhammer 2..there is a general feeling that in order to pump out historical releases, CA has not given the game the support that could reasonably have been expected.

    People were led to believe that lack of support was due to an issue with Norsca, when that turned out to not be the case and this was the planned release schedule, things got ugly. Especially when the DLC that was finally released was rather mediocre and arguably unfinished, with one unit kept back for a month, and it was revealed another long awaited DLC was being kept back until next year, for no discernible reason.

    You could argue that you can go without the DLC, but CA refuses to bugfix except with it, and bugs remaining for five months is just unacceptable.

    Think the Warhammer fans have good reason to be annoyed, although I don't hold with wanting historical titles to fail.


  • NopeacejustwarNopeacejustwar Posts: 694Registered Users
    I just can’t get hyped for any other title. Fantasy total war is where it’s at for me. WH2 is one of the best games I’ve played.
  • vie_dragonvie_dragon Posts: 155Registered Users
    edited September 2018
    Just trying to understand whats going on! Not blaming anybody here. Not trying to offend anyone here.

    For example I didn't know that Warhammer not only sold well but actively saved their franchise! I thought Shogun was buggy but good not that history titles actively hurt their sales. This is bad news!
    I also didn't know that they made DLC for Rome 2 and Attila. Especially Attila has terrible reviews.
    This whole thing starts making more sense now.

    Also explains why a lot of the screenshots I see are often from Medieval 2 aka very old Total War games.

    I went through all the Steam Charts regarding the games player base and ToB is abysmal!
    Rome 2 has quite a large player base, only 2000 less than Warhammer.
    Attila has around as much as the first Warhammer, so does Shogun.

    DLC for Rome 2, even if its really old makes sense cause it still holds a big player base.
    Attila makes less sense but eh.

    It also seems like the Fantasy Fans are in the majority! In this part of the forum obviously but also player base wise.
  • IlyandirIlyandir Posts: 194Registered Users
    @Arsenic summed it up pretty well.

    The only thing I would add is that the toxic nature of community fans for history vs. WH are from a vocal minority (on both sides). They aren't representative of the community as a whole. Sure, larger groups on both sides of the fence have their personal preferences and even grievances, but the vast majority are mature enough not to fly off the handle via their preferred forum/social media outlet.

    For me, I will try and provide constructive feedback when and how I feel it is appropriate. Most others will be the same. Hopefully, CA will listen.
    I can bend minds with my spoon.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,491Registered Users
    Not interested anymore in historical titles. The variety and options a fictional setting offers are just better for a beer-and-pretzel strategy series like TW. Historical settings work well for grognard wargames, which blur the line between gaming and scholarly military history research. Any other genre, there is no comparison. I will wait for 70% sales, maybe.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 9,637Registered Users
    When Wh1 was announced and "historical TW "fans"" complained how DARE CA to make something not 100% of their taste and devote 1000% of its resources to please them, I was disgusted and consider to abandon not historical TW but the historical TW community, which I otherwise viewed myself a part of.

    Then 3K was announced and the Warhammer/Fantasy began in some part to show very similar disgusting behavior. Deamanding that every resources CA has (how many people work for CA by now around 500?) must go to WH and WH only and that other games better fail or never be spoken of.
    I was disgusts with that as well.

    So yeah the TW community seem to suck in general.


    And I'm not even touching on, the amnesia people pretend to have and claim that CA was never criticism for the numbers of DLC's or how they ridicule every information CA gives them (example, the comparably price of a unit with the whole art of a big DLC) and then turns around and wonders why CA isn't more talkative.

    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • HoneyBunHoneyBun Senior Member Posts: 4,209Registered Users
    Warhammer is so good that I was 90% certain I would never go back to historicals.

    Then I bought Thrones and it removed my 10% of doubt.

    I hope historical is successful for those who like that sort of thing. I want CA to succeed. But no, I won't personally be bothering with historical TW ever again.

    They are making an FPS. Who knew a company could have a mid-life crisis ...

  • Yekdo21Yekdo21 Posts: 44Registered Users
    I like both historical and warhammer games. But Rome2 and especially Atilla killed the historical total war for me. Its just my opinion, and i did not like them (although not sure how is the current state as they get updates). On the other hand total war warhammer opened a new world for me. I did not have any clue about warhammer universe before. Thought it was some kind of a warcraft clone (!). But now i am into its lore, tabletop etc.

    For 3K i would definetly be interested in. However the way they treat their warhammer fans is horrible. We gather information through reddit and 3rd party sources instead of here. Even the way they talk is frusturating (like they have no responsibility I.e. Grace’s responds in reddit). Thats why I wont purchase 3k. And I am afraid that if everybody here think like that, the financial consequences may affect TW warhammer future (if there is one)
  • vie_dragonvie_dragon Posts: 155Registered Users
    I disagree that this community is toxic! You get a few bad apples anywhere and Warhammer is known for being the central point of lots of rage. It's just that atleast they were people discussing various things and nowadays its lots of whining and a very bleak opinion on basically all of Total War. No matter what you like.

    I'm really biased though, Warhammer is pretty much the only franchise I like which hasnt been killed off by a major publisher/developer. I also gotta say that I joined the party late and bought all the DLC for the first game, except Norsca + the main game for around 50$ during a big sale. Bought the second for full price though which I don't regret at all.

    Also, who is Grace? A Community Manager for the Total War Series? People seemed to like her but recently started massively disliking her it seems.
  • MrJadeMrJade Senior Member Lansing, MIPosts: 7,137Registered Users
    I still love historical games. 3K looks like Dynasty Warriors drivel. I'm here not because of fantasy ipso facto but Warhammer.
    Thrones of Britannia: 69/100
    Warhammer II: 73/100
    Warhammer: 79/100
    Attila: 70/100 [Age of Charlemagne: 72/100]
    Rome II: 49/100
    Shogun II: 93/100 [Fall of the Samurai: 95/100]
    Napoleon: 58/100
    Empire: 53/100
    Medieval II: 90/100 [Kingdoms: 90/100]
    Rome I: 88/100
    Medieval I: 92/100
    Shogun I: 84/100
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,491Registered Users
    SiWI said:

    When Wh1 was announced and "historical TW "fans"" complained how DARE CA to make something not 100% of their taste and devote 1000% of its resources to please them, I was disgusted and consider to abandon not historical TW but the historical TW community, which I otherwise viewed myself a part of.

    Then 3K was announced and the Warhammer/Fantasy began in some part to show very similar disgusting behavior. Deamanding that every resources CA has (how many people work for CA by now around 500?) must go to WH and WH only and that other games better fail or never be spoken of.
    I was disgusts with that as well.

    So yeah the TW community seem to suck in general.


    And I'm not even touching on, the amnesia people pretend to have and claim that CA was never criticism for the numbers of DLC's or how they ridicule every information CA gives them (example, the comparably price of a unit with the whole art of a big DLC) and then turns around and wonders why CA isn't more talkative.

    I don't really understand what you're talking about. Do you find people who vote for their issues in an election disgusting too? If I support, say, public over private healthcare shouldn't I vote for a given party, even if it's going to hurt other people's interests? "Demanding" is taking hostages and threatening to blow them up if your request isn't satisfied. People here are just voicing their support, that's perfectly normal.
  • HoneyBunHoneyBun Senior Member Posts: 4,209Registered Users



    Also, who is Grace? A Community Manager for the Total War Series? People seemed to like her but recently started massively disliking her it seems.

    Nobody dislikes @Grace_CA

    Grace is the ONLY person at CA who ever talks to us. Grace's job is to be on Reddit, not the forums. Despite this she comes here and tells us stuff that NO ONE else bothers to tell us. Grace has been seen here on bank holidays and weekends.

    Grace is a legend and much adored.

    But that doesn't mean we pull our punches with Grace about just how bad CA communication (and recent business decisions) have been.

    If Grace ran CA - I doubt we'd have any grumbling.

    They are making an FPS. Who knew a company could have a mid-life crisis ...

  • ArsenicArsenic Posts: 4,094Registered Users


    Also, who is Grace? A Community Manager for the Total War Series? People seemed to like her but recently started massively disliking her it seems.


    Bit unfair if so.

    The community managers have no say over release schedules or anything else. And Grace has always tried to keep us as informed as she can.

    Plus her palpable sense of exasperation with some of the members of the TW community is really quite funny sometimes. I'm convinced if she ever leaves CA her parting gift will be a picture of her giving us all the V-sign.


  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 9,637Registered Users

    I disagree that this community is toxic! You get a few bad apples anywhere and Warhammer is known for being the central point of lots of rage. It's just that atleast they were people discussing various things and nowadays its lots of whining and a very bleak opinion on basically all of Total War. No matter what you like.

    maybe my view has darkend in the years, but I found it rather delusional to look at the TW community and think "yep that is a healthy and good community, only a few bad apples".


    Also, who is Grace? A Community Manager for the Total War Series? People seemed to like her but recently started massively disliking her it seems.

    Grace was a community manger for WH, but got promoted if I recall correctly.
    She was often the author of most of CA post hear especially the announcements, hence her "fame".

    Her being dislike more could be either because well she explains the CA standpoint of things or because you could read her statements to the community showing more and more frustration with the same.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • vie_dragonvie_dragon Posts: 155Registered Users
    edited September 2018
    That makes sense. Being CA's Community manager at the moment seems tiring especially when you basically can't say anything because there are no news.
    So it's kind of just the community shifting the blame onto the part of CA that communicates with the community.

    This whole ordeal seems like CA kind of, I don't know, released too many new games at once, promising lots of support for every single one and no one actually wanting to play them(the history one)? The newest Total War is doing very poorly and it's really sad to see. What I don't understand is why CA combines Fantasy and Historical with Three Kingdoms now. A new game again after a complete flop?

    I don't think CA is being malevolent here, someone probably just made some really **** decision and its affecting the whole company. Atleast Britannia is mostly reused assets so they didnt shoot themselves in the foot.
    I still don't understand why you would release another game just a year later though. It seems risky, especially when there are very safe alternatives in generating revenue through DLC. 7,50 for 4 units, 2 lords and a bunch of trivial stuff seems like a godsend from a charlemagne perspective.

    I find the charlemagne meme to be one of the funniest things, that thread was a good read.
    How can 1 unit cost as much as a full DLC?

    Edit: Kind of catching up on a lot of old things that happened during production as well.
  • bofaasbofaas Posts: 70Registered Users
    I never played Warhammer table top or was familiar with it until TWW I got introduced to the total war series back in 2002 with medieval and I fell in love immediately and have played every title since but after fantasy I just can't get excited about historical titles anymore it's too bad they have been so quiet and slowed down with future DLCs especially as I'm obsessed with skaven but it is what it is at least vermintide has fed my addiction for the moment
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,491Registered Users


    I find the charlemagne meme to be one of the funniest things, that thread was a good read.
    How can 1 unit cost as much as a full DLC?

    Quite easily. If you look at Charlemagne units, you'll see they are basically reskins. A single modder can achieve similar results in a week. While monster units need modelling, rigging, animations, all of which require experienced professionals using dedicated tools. The profit margins of historical games must be huge in comparison to Warhammer.
  • ArsenicArsenic Posts: 4,094Registered Users
    Incidentally, does anyone remember the days when Reddit was lauded as a hive of positivity compared to us here?

    Having had a glance at it for the first time in a while, all I can say is blimey, that's changed..


  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 9,637Registered Users


    I find the charlemagne meme to be one of the funniest things, that thread was a good read.
    How can 1 unit cost as much as a full DLC?

    And this is what I mean:
    stupid and ignorance and thinks highly of itself.


    The statement from CA was that the ART of the DLC, the loadings screens the pictures ect, would cost as much as that 1 unit.


    What yo people like yourself say?
    "Lol how can be a unit as expensive as a DLC lol lol".

    This basically happens to most of CA's statements.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,491Registered Users
    edited September 2018
    SiWI said:


    The statement from CA was that the ART of the DLC, the loadings screens the pictures ect, would cost as much as that 1 unit.

    Art budget includes all the graphical components of a game.
  • vie_dragonvie_dragon Posts: 155Registered Users
    I
    Xenos7 said:



    Quite easily. If you look at Charlemagne units, you'll see they are basically reskins. A single modder can achieve similar results in a week. While monster units need modelling, rigging, animations, all of which require experienced professionals using dedicated tools. The profit margins of historical games must be huge in comparison to Warhammer.

    Yeah now that I think about it the animations are top notch, it's one of the reasons why I like the game so much. Watching the fights is great fun and seeing one of the bigger monsters do a sync kill on a soldier is great they add so much. The Cygor for example had to be done from scratch, thats more expensive than just re-modelling a giant.

    The historical games also don't have the very expensive Games Workshop license so they dont have to share profits.
  • vie_dragonvie_dragon Posts: 155Registered Users
    edited September 2018
    SiWI said:


    And this is what I mean:
    stupid and ignorance and thinks highly of itself.


    The statement from CA was that the ART of the DLC, the loadings screens the pictures ect, would cost as much as that 1 unit.


    What yo people like yourself say?
    "Lol how can be a unit as expensive as a DLC lol lol".

    This basically happens to most of CA's statements.

    I'm not offended but I made this thread specifically because I wanted to find out about what is true and what is the community being entitled or ****. Of course I parrot a lot of stuff.

    I just found it funny. Thanks for clearing it up though.

    Edit: Sorry for double posting.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 9,637Registered Users
    Xenos7 said:

    SiWI said:


    The statement from CA was that the ART of the DLC, the loadings screens the pictures ect, would cost as much as that 1 unit.

    Art budget includes all the graphical components of a game.
    doubt it.

    provide a source for your claim.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,491Registered Users

    I

    Xenos7 said:



    Quite easily. If you look at Charlemagne units, you'll see they are basically reskins. A single modder can achieve similar results in a week. While monster units need modelling, rigging, animations, all of which require experienced professionals using dedicated tools. The profit margins of historical games must be huge in comparison to Warhammer.

    Yeah now that I think about it the animations are top notch, it's one of the reasons why I like the game so much. Watching the fights is great fun and seeing one of the bigger monsters do a sync kill on a soldier is great they add so much. The Cygor for example had to be done from scratch, thats more expensive than just re-modelling a giant.

    The historical games also don't have the very expensive Games Workshop license so they dont have to share profits.
    Budgets for games have ballooned in the last ten years (we are talking a couple hundreds of millions dollars in some cases) and that's mostly due to marketing and graphics. It's not like games are getting more mechanically complex or programming more expensive. It's all money going into cosmetics.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,491Registered Users
    SiWI said:

    Xenos7 said:

    SiWI said:


    The statement from CA was that the ART of the DLC, the loadings screens the pictures ect, would cost as much as that 1 unit.

    Art budget includes all the graphical components of a game.
    doubt it.

    provide a source for your claim.
    "Computer graphics have improved enormously in the past 20 years; the graphics in Destiny, which was created by a team of around 500 people, are streets ahead of those in Doom, a seminal shooter released in 1993 that was written by a handful of friends. With a few exceptions (such as SpeedTree, a piece of software that automates the creation of realistic-looking trees), all the art in a video game is hand-crafted. As characters, items, levels and visual effects have become more intricate and detailed, developers have had little choice but to throw more and more artists at the problem."

    https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2014/09/24/why-video-games-are-so-expensive-to-develop

    The Economist uses the term "art" for all graphical assets. Good enough, mate?
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 9,637Registered Users
    Xenos7 said:

    SiWI said:

    Xenos7 said:

    SiWI said:


    The statement from CA was that the ART of the DLC, the loadings screens the pictures ect, would cost as much as that 1 unit.

    Art budget includes all the graphical components of a game.
    doubt it.

    provide a source for your claim.
    "Computer graphics have improved enormously in the past 20 years; the graphics in Destiny, which was created by a team of around 500 people, are streets ahead of those in Doom, a seminal shooter released in 1993 that was written by a handful of friends. With a few exceptions (such as SpeedTree, a piece of software that automates the creation of realistic-looking trees), all the art in a video game is hand-crafted. As characters, items, levels and visual effects have become more intricate and detailed, developers have had little choice but to throw more and more artists at the problem."

    https://www.economist.com/the-economist-explains/2014/09/24/why-video-games-are-so-expensive-to-develop

    The Economist uses the term "art" for all graphical assets. Good enough, mate?
    No.

    It only proves that the economist use the term this way.

    You would have to prove that CA use the term that way.

    Because the way I remember that statement, was that they meant the art (drawings ect.) and not the modelling of the units/models or 3D assets.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
Sign In or Register to comment.