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

So Disappointed.

2»

Comments

  • EfixEfix Registered Users Posts: 280

    Breadbox said:

    Why on earth would you scooby doo the minotaur, whyyy, I couldn’t have anyother reaction but to laugh when I saw the axe wielding furry.

    Please either make an actual minotaur or don’t, or name a unit as a reference, not scooby doo a furry replacement.

    You don’t make historical fantasy for the sake of diversity, if you actually want diversity, prepare to sit down and actually study HISTORY, the cultures and archaeological discoveries.

    It's possible that the majority of TW historical purists are actually just "fantasy haters". If that's the case, they might accept non-historical Minoan bull warriors without question, as long as they make the mythology go away.
    I'm a purist as you call and I would rather have a real minotaur or gorgone or centaur because this game is clearly fantasy and I don't mind it at all. But don't try to call it a historical title and shove some fantasy stuff there and there.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 26,039
    edited September 2019
    Efix said:

    Breadbox said:

    Why on earth would you scooby doo the minotaur, whyyy, I couldn’t have anyother reaction but to laugh when I saw the axe wielding furry.

    Please either make an actual minotaur or don’t, or name a unit as a reference, not scooby doo a furry replacement.

    You don’t make historical fantasy for the sake of diversity, if you actually want diversity, prepare to sit down and actually study HISTORY, the cultures and archaeological discoveries.

    It's possible that the majority of TW historical purists are actually just "fantasy haters". If that's the case, they might accept non-historical Minoan bull warriors without question, as long as they make the mythology go away.
    I'm a purist as you call and I would rather have a real minotaur or gorgone or centaur because this game is clearly fantasy and I don't mind it at all. But don't try to call it a historical title and shove some fantasy stuff there and there.
    "Purist"? Then how could you stand playing any of the older TWs which were ridiculously unauthentic?

  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,788
    HGNK said:

    Dave I 100% agree that it was a commercial decision to go the fantasy route to increase sales. O simply doubt that it worked for them? Maybe it did? All I know is that 20 years ago when Rome was first released it was the hottest game in town. I doubt their present titles are achieving this, but I may be wrong? If they are then good luck to them, but they won't get my money is all I am saying.

    As said by a few others, WH sold much higher than all previous games and the current batch of DLC for WH2 is the best selling DLC so far. Now, If WH had flopped I'd see your point, but it didn't. I loved the historical games of the past but I felt by R2 they were getting stale and imo WH really saved the franchise. However, the choices you get from playing WH has really tainted purely historical games and the options they have for gameplay.

    I think CA got it right, by admitting that no historical TW game of the past was purely historical, they were more like a film based loosely on history.. The Patriot or Braveheart come to mind. You can see this very clearly with Empire TW as it takes so many features from the Patriot including the battle sound effects and adding units from the film (Tarleton's Light Dragoons). Never expect CA to do an unemotional historical look at history, it will always be built around larger than life characters, it worked for Hollywood and the games industry is getting more and more like each year.
  • TheGuardianOfMetalTheGuardianOfMetal Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 11,672

    HGNK said:

    Dave I 100% agree that it was a commercial decision to go the fantasy route to increase sales. O simply doubt that it worked for them? Maybe it did? All I know is that 20 years ago when Rome was first released it was the hottest game in town. I doubt their present titles are achieving this, but I may be wrong? If they are then good luck to them, but they won't get my money is all I am saying.

    As said by a few others, WH sold much higher than all previous games and the current batch of DLC for WH2 is the best selling DLC so far. Now, If WH had flopped I'd see your point, but it didn't. I loved the historical games of the past but I felt by R2 they were getting stale and imo WH really saved the franchise. However, the choices you get from playing WH has really tainted purely historical games and the options they have for gameplay.

    I think CA got it right, by admitting that no historical TW game of the past was purely historical, they were more like a film based loosely on history.. The Patriot or Braveheart come to mind. You can see this very clearly with Empire TW as it takes so many features from the Patriot including the battle sound effects and adding units from the film (Tarleton's Light Dragoons). Never expect CA to do an unemotional historical look at history, it will always be built around larger than life characters, it worked for Hollywood and the games industry is getting more and more like each year.
    Tarleton's Light Dragoons:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Legion_(American_Revolution)

    but yeah,t he Scots in Med II were clearly Braveheart.

    While i like the most fantastic approaches, i hope Med III, Victoria, Empire II... if they ever come... will be more like Rome II/Attila on the scale of realistisc - Fantastic

    but please not with the "The more the tech tree advances the more you loose buildings" as in Attila... because that had other reasons than Christianity... that was one of the classical Dark Age Myths...
    Every wrong is recorded. Every slight against us, page after page, ETCHED IN BLOOD! Clan Gunnisson! Karak Eight Peaks! JOSEF BUGMAN! TOTAL WAR TROY FOR ONE YEAR EXCLUSIVELY ON THE EPIC GAMES STORE!"

    The Empire still hasn't gotten their FLC LL. We need Marius Leitdorf of Averland!

    Where is Boris Todbringer? Have you seen him? For a Middenland DLC with Boris and the Ar-Ulric!

    Queek could smell their hatred, ratcheted to a degree that even he could not evoke in their simple hearts. He stepped over the old orange-fur’s body, eager to see for himself what it was they saw. But he heard it first.
    'Waaaaaaaggh! Gorfang!'
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,788

    HGNK said:

    Dave I 100% agree that it was a commercial decision to go the fantasy route to increase sales. O simply doubt that it worked for them? Maybe it did? All I know is that 20 years ago when Rome was first released it was the hottest game in town. I doubt their present titles are achieving this, but I may be wrong? If they are then good luck to them, but they won't get my money is all I am saying.

    As said by a few others, WH sold much higher than all previous games and the current batch of DLC for WH2 is the best selling DLC so far. Now, If WH had flopped I'd see your point, but it didn't. I loved the historical games of the past but I felt by R2 they were getting stale and imo WH really saved the franchise. However, the choices you get from playing WH has really tainted purely historical games and the options they have for gameplay.

    I think CA got it right, by admitting that no historical TW game of the past was purely historical, they were more like a film based loosely on history.. The Patriot or Braveheart come to mind. You can see this very clearly with Empire TW as it takes so many features from the Patriot including the battle sound effects and adding units from the film (Tarleton's Light Dragoons). Never expect CA to do an unemotional historical look at history, it will always be built around larger than life characters, it worked for Hollywood and the games industry is getting more and more like each year.
    Tarleton's Light Dragoons:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Legion_(American_Revolution)

    but yeah,t he Scots in Med II were clearly Braveheart.

    While i like the most fantastic approaches, i hope Med III, Victoria, Empire II... if they ever come... will be more like Rome II/Attila on the scale of realistisc - Fantastic

    but please not with the "The more the tech tree advances the more you loose buildings" as in Attila... because that had other reasons than Christianity... that was one of the classical Dark Age Myths...
    Yes I am aware they are based on a real person, however, it's clear that CA got the idea from the film, as there were hundreds of choices, they just happened to select.. the bad Brit from the Patriot.

    Now there is a film, shortly to be released about the battle of Agincourt and from what I can see it looks pretty gritty, more so than previous outings, it's possible CA could go for this style if it's popular around release, especially for a M3 game. I personally find Rome a little.. flat. I think Victoria is a good choice as it can bring in totally new technology and a much larger map.
  • EfixEfix Registered Users Posts: 280

    Efix said:

    Breadbox said:

    Why on earth would you scooby doo the minotaur, whyyy, I couldn’t have anyother reaction but to laugh when I saw the axe wielding furry.

    Please either make an actual minotaur or don’t, or name a unit as a reference, not scooby doo a furry replacement.

    You don’t make historical fantasy for the sake of diversity, if you actually want diversity, prepare to sit down and actually study HISTORY, the cultures and archaeological discoveries.

    It's possible that the majority of TW historical purists are actually just "fantasy haters". If that's the case, they might accept non-historical Minoan bull warriors without question, as long as they make the mythology go away.
    I'm a purist as you call and I would rather have a real minotaur or gorgone or centaur because this game is clearly fantasy and I don't mind it at all. But don't try to call it a historical title and shove some fantasy stuff there and there.
    "Purist"? Then how could you stand playing any of the older TWs which were ridiculously unauthentic?
    Because I don't play vanilla TW.
  • Ephraim_DaltonEphraim_Dalton Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 26,039
    Efix said:

    Efix said:

    Breadbox said:

    Why on earth would you scooby doo the minotaur, whyyy, I couldn’t have anyother reaction but to laugh when I saw the axe wielding furry.

    Please either make an actual minotaur or don’t, or name a unit as a reference, not scooby doo a furry replacement.

    You don’t make historical fantasy for the sake of diversity, if you actually want diversity, prepare to sit down and actually study HISTORY, the cultures and archaeological discoveries.

    It's possible that the majority of TW historical purists are actually just "fantasy haters". If that's the case, they might accept non-historical Minoan bull warriors without question, as long as they make the mythology go away.
    I'm a purist as you call and I would rather have a real minotaur or gorgone or centaur because this game is clearly fantasy and I don't mind it at all. But don't try to call it a historical title and shove some fantasy stuff there and there.
    "Purist"? Then how could you stand playing any of the older TWs which were ridiculously unauthentic?
    Because I don't play vanilla TW.
    Your point's completely invalidated then.

    Because that's anything but "pure" TW.

  • petertel123petertel123 Junior Member Registered Users Posts: 860

    IIRC Hektor kills 30000 men in the illiad, which is pretty much the only source about the conflict. This is absolutely the wrong game to expect realism and historical accuracy from.

    If CA has done legit research and wants to take a Mythbusters approach to the "truth behind the myth", then I'm willing to have my inner child killed for the sake of progress. However, if they're just making up Scooby Doo explanations to keep the historical fans happy they're on a fool's errand IMO.
    Agreed 100%. The approach they've decided to take is horrible. I would have loved a full mythological game, and I could have accepted a historical game if mythological was not possible, but the half-assed approach they decided on killed every shred of hype for me.
    Team Bretonnia
    Team Dark Elves
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,788

    IIRC Hektor kills 30000 men in the illiad, which is pretty much the only source about the conflict. This is absolutely the wrong game to expect realism and historical accuracy from.

    If CA has done legit research and wants to take a Mythbusters approach to the "truth behind the myth", then I'm willing to have my inner child killed for the sake of progress. However, if they're just making up Scooby Doo explanations to keep the historical fans happy they're on a fool's errand IMO.
    Agreed 100%. The approach they've decided to take is horrible. I would have loved a full mythological game, and I could have accepted a historical game if mythological was not possible, but the half-assed approach they decided on killed every shred of hype for me.
    I'm not sure about this.. it's either 100% historical or 100% mythological, anything in between is lazy, half-assed, horrible etc. That's an odd position.. the many shades in between is a no? Nah..
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,798

    IIRC Hektor kills 30000 men in the illiad, which is pretty much the only source about the conflict. This is absolutely the wrong game to expect realism and historical accuracy from.

    If CA has done legit research and wants to take a Mythbusters approach to the "truth behind the myth", then I'm willing to have my inner child killed for the sake of progress. However, if they're just making up Scooby Doo explanations to keep the historical fans happy they're on a fool's errand IMO.
    Agreed 100%. The approach they've decided to take is horrible. I would have loved a full mythological game, and I could have accepted a historical game if mythological was not possible, but the half-assed approach they decided on killed every shred of hype for me.
    I'm not sure about this.. it's either 100% historical or 100% mythological, anything in between is lazy, half-assed, horrible etc. That's an odd position.. the many shades in between is a no? Nah..
    Any grey area? Sure. This grey area? Absolutely no. The Minotaur looks awful.
    "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~
  • KingsGuardofArchersKingsGuardofArchers Registered Users Posts: 44
    I mean, I do love fantasy but even in warhammer I've always hated it when a single general squares off against hundreds of enemies and lasts for 10 minutes. I wouldn't mind a slightly fantastical Troy in principle as long as it still felt realistic.

    For example, the Third Age mod for Medieval 2 is brilliant. There are cave trolls, olog-hai, mumakil...and while heroes have an extra hitpoint or two perhaps and powerful bodyguard units, if they try and square off against these foes they get squished in short order.

    Some of the features are not necessarily "fantasy vs historical" but "immersive vs arcadey" like the units immune to flanking penalties and that kind of thing.

    But as I've said above what I really, really want is a historical title dripping, oozing, overflowing with detail and bronze age goodness and anything other than that tastes like a bit of an sour bite. It's a saga release anyway so I guess that was never quite going to be on the cards, but I'd like to get as close to it as possible.

    If only I made the executive decisions, alas.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,788

    IIRC Hektor kills 30000 men in the illiad, which is pretty much the only source about the conflict. This is absolutely the wrong game to expect realism and historical accuracy from.

    If CA has done legit research and wants to take a Mythbusters approach to the "truth behind the myth", then I'm willing to have my inner child killed for the sake of progress. However, if they're just making up Scooby Doo explanations to keep the historical fans happy they're on a fool's errand IMO.
    Agreed 100%. The approach they've decided to take is horrible. I would have loved a full mythological game, and I could have accepted a historical game if mythological was not possible, but the half-assed approach they decided on killed every shred of hype for me.
    I'm not sure about this.. it's either 100% historical or 100% mythological, anything in between is lazy, half-assed, horrible etc. That's an odd position.. the many shades in between is a no? Nah..
    Any grey area? Sure. This grey area? Absolutely no. The Minotaur looks awful.
    Your whole argument was based on personal tastes.. don't mind the Minotaur personally.
  • Commissar_GCommissar_G Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 10,798

    IIRC Hektor kills 30000 men in the illiad, which is pretty much the only source about the conflict. This is absolutely the wrong game to expect realism and historical accuracy from.

    If CA has done legit research and wants to take a Mythbusters approach to the "truth behind the myth", then I'm willing to have my inner child killed for the sake of progress. However, if they're just making up Scooby Doo explanations to keep the historical fans happy they're on a fool's errand IMO.
    Agreed 100%. The approach they've decided to take is horrible. I would have loved a full mythological game, and I could have accepted a historical game if mythological was not possible, but the half-assed approach they decided on killed every shred of hype for me.
    I'm not sure about this.. it's either 100% historical or 100% mythological, anything in between is lazy, half-assed, horrible etc. That's an odd position.. the many shades in between is a no? Nah..
    Any grey area? Sure. This grey area? Absolutely no. The Minotaur looks awful.
    Your whole argument was based on personal tastes.. don't mind the Minotaur personally.
    You mean my opinion on the game was based on my opinion?

    And you're shocked why exactly?
    "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~
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 8,788

    IIRC Hektor kills 30000 men in the illiad, which is pretty much the only source about the conflict. This is absolutely the wrong game to expect realism and historical accuracy from.

    If CA has done legit research and wants to take a Mythbusters approach to the "truth behind the myth", then I'm willing to have my inner child killed for the sake of progress. However, if they're just making up Scooby Doo explanations to keep the historical fans happy they're on a fool's errand IMO.
    Agreed 100%. The approach they've decided to take is horrible. I would have loved a full mythological game, and I could have accepted a historical game if mythological was not possible, but the half-assed approach they decided on killed every shred of hype for me.
    I'm not sure about this.. it's either 100% historical or 100% mythological, anything in between is lazy, half-assed, horrible etc. That's an odd position.. the many shades in between is a no? Nah..
    Any grey area? Sure. This grey area? Absolutely no. The Minotaur looks awful.
    Your whole argument was based on personal tastes.. don't mind the Minotaur personally.
    You mean my opinion on the game was based on my opinion?

    And you're shocked why exactly?
    No, you're basing the quality of a game on something that is totally subjective. If the graphics looked like 'Horace Goes Skiing' then you would have a more objective argument.. the graphics are low quality compared to other games.. not man dressed as Minotaur is bad compared to an actual Minotaur.. pointless.
  • GREYIAMGREYIAM Senior Member Registered Users Posts: 114
    I have been a fan of CA since shogun and have full collection of games up to Warhammer which I tried ,but found it was not for me. I am a fan of the historical titles and am very sad that super powered heroes and fantasy elements have crept in to historical titles . For me 3K was a disappointment and far too easy. My initial reaction to Troy was sounds great then I find its an excuse to incorporate mythological monsters and sell fantasy as a historical game. For this reason I'M OUT!
    I am really disappointed to say I am no longer pre ordering CA games and there are now gaps in my collection. I may buy out of curiosity and download from a sale . Probably the next Saga Title will be SAINT GEORGE AND THE DRAGON!!
  • TayvarTayvar Registered Users Posts: 12,081

    I mean, I do love fantasy but even in warhammer I've always hated it when a single general squares off against hundreds of enemies and lasts for 10 minutes. I wouldn't mind a slightly fantastical Troy in principle as long as it still felt realistic.

    For example, the Third Age mod for Medieval 2 is brilliant. There are cave trolls, olog-hai, mumakil...and while heroes have an extra hitpoint or two perhaps and powerful bodyguard units, if they try and square off against these foes they get squished in short order.

    Some of the features are not necessarily "fantasy vs historical" but "immersive vs arcadey" like the units immune to flanking penalties and that kind of thing.

    It should be noted that having a human size single entity with a lot of HP was mostly CA's decision, Warhammer: Mark of Chaos was more true to the Warhammer's Tabletop Game in a sense that generals was able to get attached to an different units.
  • ThaenonThaenon Registered Users Posts: 53
    I would love a mythological game. Not trying to go against anyone else's opinion but i would like to see a larger map, and grander scale for our first bronze age era total war. I feel like being confined to Turkey and Greece is a smack in the face for a new untouched era. Cutting out many of the iconic bronze age kingdoms in Syria and africa seems like they're serving us a crust only pizza with the middle cut out... I like bread but I want pizza.

    The historical franchise is amazing and both sides of the arguement make great points. I believe their middle ground approach to having gods but not really and having creeps dressed in bull suites is very lame, and I personally dont like it. We have many historical titles, why not make a mythological game, and why not make it huge. Yes we have warhammer but warhammer is not our home, this is our magic and mystery of our history so I feel it will make a huge impact with people going all in.

    Imagine having the full campaign map, Britain to Africa Spain to India, and featuring the mythologies of all lands. The Nordic, Celtic, Gallic, God's all the way to egyptian mythology, middle east, and of course Graeco-Roman all clashing with their marvelous beasts, and creatures... Sounds epic to me.
  • KingsGuardofArchersKingsGuardofArchers Registered Users Posts: 44
    Thaenon said:



    Imagine having the full campaign map, Britain to Africa Spain to India, and featuring the mythologies of all lands. The Nordic, Celtic, Gallic, God's all the way to egyptian mythology, middle east, and of course Graeco-Roman all clashing with their marvelous beasts, and creatures... Sounds epic to me.

    To be honest I do really like the sound of that, I just wish when people heard "fantasy" or "mythology" they didn't immediately decide all background realism could be thrown out the window at the same time.

Sign In or Register to comment.