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

Maybe it's just me but I don't see the point of Saga's...

2

Comments

  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Posts: 2,468Registered Users
    As several people have already said, their primary purpose is to experiment with new mechanics and systems that could be expanded on and implemented into future games.

    Thrones of Britannia introduced Army supplies, faction dilemmas, evolving factions, changes to recruitment and mustering, character loyalty, awarding titles and estates, managing character loyalty and satisfaction, etc.
    All of which were later expanded on and implemented into 3K, and are some of it's most praised features (and which I've seen a few people ask to be implemented into Warhammer).

    Also, as to the argument that Saga games are a "cheap reskin"; yes, they are. They're meant to be. Reusing and re-purposing existing assets saves money, allowing the devs more rope to experiment.
  • agentbermy441agentbermy441 Posts: 18Registered Users

    As several people have already said, their primary purpose is to experiment with new mechanics and systems that could be expanded on and implemented into future games.

    Thrones of Britannia introduced Army supplies, faction dilemmas, evolving factions, changes to recruitment and mustering, character loyalty, awarding titles and estates, managing character loyalty and satisfaction, etc.
    All of which were later expanded on and implemented into 3K, and are some of it's most praised features (and which I've seen a few people ask to be implemented into Warhammer).

    Also, as to the argument that Saga games are a "cheap reskin"; yes, they are. They're meant to be. Reusing and re-purposing existing assets saves money, allowing the devs more rope to experiment.

    And yet I have yet to be motivated to play TOB or 3K but I might play 3K when it’s cheaper. Warhammer will always be my golden child. Now if they added better sieges it would even be harder to surpass

  • CrossilCrossil Posts: 4,561Registered Users
    I'm actually tempted by Troy, for some reason. It will probably fall off once the weaker elements of the title become apparent due to smaller budget and scope of a Saga title.
    UNLEASH THE EVERCHARIOT
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 18,673Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    Moved to Chat.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
  • makar55makar55 Posts: 1,693Registered Users
    I'd rather have 40$ DLC for big titles over Saga games.
  • Whiskeyjack_5691Whiskeyjack_5691 Posts: 2,468Registered Users
    edited September 20

    As several people have already said, their primary purpose is to experiment with new mechanics and systems that could be expanded on and implemented into future games.

    Thrones of Britannia introduced Army supplies, faction dilemmas, evolving factions, changes to recruitment and mustering, character loyalty, awarding titles and estates, managing character loyalty and satisfaction, etc.
    All of which were later expanded on and implemented into 3K, and are some of it's most praised features (and which I've seen a few people ask to be implemented into Warhammer).

    Also, as to the argument that Saga games are a "cheap reskin"; yes, they are. They're meant to be. Reusing and re-purposing existing assets saves money, allowing the devs more rope to experiment.

    And yet I have yet to be motivated to play TOB or 3K but I might play 3K when it’s cheaper. Warhammer will always be my golden child. Now if they added better sieges it would even be harder to surpass

    I mean, that's fine. If you're not interested in either of them, then nobody expects you to play them.
    But they're not meant for you; they're meant for the people who are interested those settings and periods. And a lot of people are interested.

    There seems to be this very odd attitude among some of the more hardcore TW: Warhammer fans (not saying you in particular, Agentbermy) that everything CA does is intended to appeal to them and encourage them to stick around for the series after the Warhammer trilogy finishes up. As if Warhammer is the be-all and end-all and nothing comes close to it, and the rest of the fanbase and what they want can **** right off.

    And that just simply isn't true. Warhammer fans can't understand why CA is doing Saga games about stuff like Troy and the Viking Invasions, because that's not what Warhammer fans want? That's fine, they're not meant for Warhammer fans. They're meant for the people who asked for them.

    Also remember that a lot of Warhammer fans have openly stated that they only got into TW for Warhammer and have no interest in or intention of playing any other TW game (save for perhaps TW:40K) after the Warhammer trilogy, so don't be surprised when CA decides to do stuff that appeals to other people from a broader audience.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,487Registered Users
    edited September 20

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    You don't have a point, you've got a petty insult and a "could". There's simply no reason to believe those resources would be transferred to TWW. There's simply no reason to believe that this would be the case. Petty insults don't change that. As I said as far as we know Saga has no affect on TWW. "Could" does not change this.

    Now, if you want to have a discussion I'm happy to, if you're going to keep hurling insults then I'm simply not interested.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • CommisarCommisar Senior Member Posts: 1,208Registered Users
    edited September 20
    <

    Exactly imagine if they focused their resources to improve warhammer. We have yet to have 360 degree forts or in-depth staggered defenses. Fact is these saga’s resources could be used elsewhere. Time and time again companies that focus on creating a masterpiece do better then companies that churn out shallower games. I didn’t even want to play TOB.

    Except not always the case. Often the role a team member in one place has nothing to do in another. Only so many people can work on a single file at a time so it limits access.

    I didn't want to play WH. I don't know why they bothered with it. See? Just because it's not your interest doesn't mean it isn't in other peoples. CA has expanded to include the other studios, they did that to increase what they can do and they then need to generate income to pay for that.

    If they focused only on one game they'd end up doing it more as extra DLC, they then need to pay the increased wages for that single product. Just because a game has great features doesn't mean people will play it if they have no interest in it.

    That's said as someone who has no interest in Troy and disappointed when I saw the announcement and trailer.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 18,673Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    Let's all stop the personal remarks.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
  • MarcusLiviusMarcusLivius Senior Member Posts: 638Registered Users

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    How ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that Rockstar was putting all their resources into Red Dead Redemption 2, and not supporting and developing their other games? Beyond that the potential market size for a Total War game is probably 15% of what Red Dead Redemption 2 could target. Your example is flawed on so many levels.

    You are right though, CA "could" put all their resources into WH. If they did they would see diminishing returns on their investments and make less money than if they developed multiple games. TW:Warhammer 2 already is the best game of its type in the market.
  • ConstantineZAynConstantineZAyn Posts: 110Registered Users
    edited September 21

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    How ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that Rockstar was putting all their resources into Red Dead Redemption 2, and not supporting and developing their other games? Beyond that the potential market size for a Total War game is probably 15% of what Red Dead Redemption 2 could target. Your example is flawed on so many levels.

    You are right though, CA "could" put all their resources into WH. If they did they would see diminishing returns on their investments and make less money than if they developed multiple games. TW:Warhammer 2 already is the best game of its type in the market.
    "Other games". There are none except for GTA online and mobile releases of old games They had I believe 4,000 people developing RDR2. The size of the studio or game is irrelevant, what matters is that one studio chose to focus itself to one project. This one is spread thin, making cashgrabs.

    My example is "flawed on so many levels", yet you only mention two, both being more of a result of your own lack of knowledge.

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    You don't have a point, you've got a petty insult and a "could". There's simply no reason to believe those resources would be transferred to TWW. There's simply no reason to believe that this would be the case. Petty insults don't change that. As I said as far as we know Saga has no affect on TWW. "Could" does not change this.

    Now, if you want to have a discussion I'm happy to, if you're going to keep hurling insults then I'm simply not interested.
    Once again you ignore my whole comment and get hung up on a tiny part of it. My point is simple and straightforward. It is irrelevant where those resources go, my point is that they could and should go to Warhammer. Saying they might not doesn't invalidate that. It is you who doesn't get the point, and doesn't have one himself.
  • dge1dge1 Moderator Arkansas, USAPosts: 18,673Registered Users, Moderators, Knights
    Everyone needs to stop the personal comments.
    "The two most common things in the universe are Hydrogen and Stupidity." - Harlan Ellison
    "The right to be heard does not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." - Hubert H. Humphrey
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience.” - George Carlin
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,487Registered Users
    You've responded to my point. My point is as you quoted that Saga "has no affect on TWW"




    Maybe it's just me but I don't see the point in discussing a Saga game on the Warhammer forum. It has no affect on TWW.

    Wrong. CA has limited resources. The people making sagas could be working on warhammer and giving us a better game.
    That those resources "could" be used to go to TWW doesn't make my point any less right. Though I'd suggest that the "could" is highly suspect. CA is a for profit company. As far as we know CA quite simply couldn't apply those saga resources to TWW as good business practice possibly wouldn't allow it.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,148Registered Users

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    How ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that Rockstar was putting all their resources into Red Dead Redemption 2, and not supporting and developing their other games? Beyond that the potential market size for a Total War game is probably 15% of what Red Dead Redemption 2 could target. Your example is flawed on so many levels.

    You are right though, CA "could" put all their resources into WH. If they did they would see diminishing returns on their investments and make less money than if they developed multiple games. TW:Warhammer 2 already is the best game of its type in the market.
    "Other games". There are none except for GTA online and mobile releases of old games They had I believe 4,000 people developing RDR2. The size of the studio or game is irrelevant, what matters is that one studio chose to focus itself to one project. This one is spread thin, making cashgrabs.

    My example is "flawed on so many levels", yet you only mention two, both being more of a result of your own lack of knowledge.

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    You don't have a point, you've got a petty insult and a "could". There's simply no reason to believe those resources would be transferred to TWW. There's simply no reason to believe that this would be the case. Petty insults don't change that. As I said as far as we know Saga has no affect on TWW. "Could" does not change this.

    Now, if you want to have a discussion I'm happy to, if you're going to keep hurling insults then I'm simply not interested.
    Once again you ignore my whole comment and get hung up on a tiny part of it. My point is simple and straightforward. It is irrelevant where those resources go, my point is that they could and should go to Warhammer. Saying they might not doesn't invalidate that. It is you who doesn't get the point, and doesn't have one himself.
    Could and should go to Warhammer... why? Don't get me wrong I like WH but that doesn't mean I'm willing to take a dump on those who don't. The last 2 Saga games sold well, it makes CA money, that's what companies like to do, I'm surprised you don't know this.
  • agentbermy441agentbermy441 Posts: 18Registered Users
    edited September 22

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    How ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that Rockstar was putting all their resources into Red Dead Redemption 2, and not supporting and developing their other games? Beyond that the potential market size for a Total War game is probably 15% of what Red Dead Redemption 2 could target. Your example is flawed on so many levels.

    You are right though, CA "could" put all their resources into WH. If they did they would see diminishing returns on their investments and make less money than if they developed multiple games. TW:Warhammer 2 already is the best game of its type in the market.
    "Other games". There are none except for GTA online and mobile releases of old games They had I believe 4,000 people developing RDR2. The size of the studio or game is irrelevant, what matters is that one studio chose to focus itself to one project. This one is spread thin, making cashgrabs.

    My example is "flawed on so many levels", yet you only mention two, both being more of a result of your own lack of knowledge.

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    You don't have a point, you've got a petty insult and a "could". There's simply no reason to believe those resources would be transferred to TWW. There's simply no reason to believe that this would be the case. Petty insults don't change that. As I said as far as we know Saga has no affect on TWW. "Could" does not change this.

    Now, if you want to have a discussion I'm happy to, if you're going to keep hurling insults then I'm simply not interested.
    Once again you ignore my whole comment and get hung up on a tiny part of it. My point is simple and straightforward. It is irrelevant where those resources go, my point is that they could and should go to Warhammer. Saying they might not doesn't invalidate that. It is you who doesn't get the point, and doesn't have one himself.
    Could and should go to Warhammer... why? Don't get me wrong I like WH but that doesn't mean I'm willing to take a dump on those who don't. The last 2 Saga games sold well, it makes CA money, that's what companies like to do, I'm surprised you don't know this.
    Haha EA likes to make money and churn out games yearly and so do many others and evidence has shown it destroys the brand and all you have left is hollow games that don’t dig deep. Most memorable games I played are ones that aren’t released annually.
    Post edited by agentbermy441 on
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,148Registered Users

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    How ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that Rockstar was putting all their resources into Red Dead Redemption 2, and not supporting and developing their other games? Beyond that the potential market size for a Total War game is probably 15% of what Red Dead Redemption 2 could target. Your example is flawed on so many levels.

    You are right though, CA "could" put all their resources into WH. If they did they would see diminishing returns on their investments and make less money than if they developed multiple games. TW:Warhammer 2 already is the best game of its type in the market.
    "Other games". There are none except for GTA online and mobile releases of old games They had I believe 4,000 people developing RDR2. The size of the studio or game is irrelevant, what matters is that one studio chose to focus itself to one project. This one is spread thin, making cashgrabs.

    My example is "flawed on so many levels", yet you only mention two, both being more of a result of your own lack of knowledge.

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    You don't have a point, you've got a petty insult and a "could". There's simply no reason to believe those resources would be transferred to TWW. There's simply no reason to believe that this would be the case. Petty insults don't change that. As I said as far as we know Saga has no affect on TWW. "Could" does not change this.

    Now, if you want to have a discussion I'm happy to, if you're going to keep hurling insults then I'm simply not interested.
    Once again you ignore my whole comment and get hung up on a tiny part of it. My point is simple and straightforward. It is irrelevant where those resources go, my point is that they could and should go to Warhammer. Saying they might not doesn't invalidate that. It is you who doesn't get the point, and doesn't have one himself.
    Could and should go to Warhammer... why? Don't get me wrong I like WH but that doesn't mean I'm willing to take a dump on those who don't. The last 2 Saga games sold well, it makes CA money, that's what companies like to do, I'm surprised you don't know this.
    Haha EA limes to make money and churn out games yearly and so do many others and evidence has shown it destroys the brand and all you have left is hollow games that don’t dig deep. Most memorable games I played are ones that aren’t released annually.
    EA and every other game company. CA's main releases are very rarely done within a year, however, they are a much larger company these days with Sega backing them up.

    What's wrong? Are you after the good old days? Let me tell you a quick story.. one day there was a game developer called CA, who owned one of the most popular PC strategy games and had very high sells whenever it was released. They were so popular, in fact, CA went out of business and Sega offered to take them over. The moral of this story is, it doesn't matter how good your game is, if you don't inject a sense of realism you go bust.

    This is the main reason why CA very rarely take business advise from the people on this forum.. they appreciate you playing the game and all but just don't get too upset when they ignore your quality business advice.
  • agentbermy441agentbermy441 Posts: 18Registered Users

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    How ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that Rockstar was putting all their resources into Red Dead Redemption 2, and not supporting and developing their other games? Beyond that the potential market size for a Total War game is probably 15% of what Red Dead Redemption 2 could target. Your example is flawed on so many levels.

    You are right though, CA "could" put all their resources into WH. If they did they would see diminishing returns on their investments and make less money than if they developed multiple games. TW:Warhammer 2 already is the best game of its type in the market.
    "Other games". There are none except for GTA online and mobile releases of old games They had I believe 4,000 people developing RDR2. The size of the studio or game is irrelevant, what matters is that one studio chose to focus itself to one project. This one is spread thin, making cashgrabs.

    My example is "flawed on so many levels", yet you only mention two, both being more of a result of your own lack of knowledge.

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    You don't have a point, you've got a petty insult and a "could". There's simply no reason to believe those resources would be transferred to TWW. There's simply no reason to believe that this would be the case. Petty insults don't change that. As I said as far as we know Saga has no affect on TWW. "Could" does not change this.

    Now, if you want to have a discussion I'm happy to, if you're going to keep hurling insults then I'm simply not interested.
    Once again you ignore my whole comment and get hung up on a tiny part of it. My point is simple and straightforward. It is irrelevant where those resources go, my point is that they could and should go to Warhammer. Saying they might not doesn't invalidate that. It is you who doesn't get the point, and doesn't have one himself.
    Could and should go to Warhammer... why? Don't get me wrong I like WH but that doesn't mean I'm willing to take a dump on those who don't. The last 2 Saga games sold well, it makes CA money, that's what companies like to do, I'm surprised you don't know this.
    Haha EA limes to make money and churn out games yearly and so do many others and evidence has shown it destroys the brand and all you have left is hollow games that don’t dig deep. Most memorable games I played are ones that aren’t released annually.
    EA and every other game company. CA's main releases are very rarely done within a year, however, they are a much larger company these days with Sega backing them up.

    What's wrong? Are you after the good old days? Let me tell you a quick story.. one day there was a game developer called CA, who owned one of the most popular PC strategy games and had very high sells whenever it was released. They were so popular, in fact, CA went out of business and Sega offered to take them over. The moral of this story is, it doesn't matter how good your game is, if you don't inject a sense of realism you go bust.

    This is the main reason why CA very rarely take business advise from the people on this forum.. they appreciate you playing the game and all but just don't get too upset when they ignore your quality business advice.
    And look at the current state of gaming now...shallower and yearly..no thanks I can wait for a good game but will never accept cheaper experiences.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,487Registered Users

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    How ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that Rockstar was putting all their resources into Red Dead Redemption 2, and not supporting and developing their other games? Beyond that the potential market size for a Total War game is probably 15% of what Red Dead Redemption 2 could target. Your example is flawed on so many levels.

    You are right though, CA "could" put all their resources into WH. If they did they would see diminishing returns on their investments and make less money than if they developed multiple games. TW:Warhammer 2 already is the best game of its type in the market.
    "Other games". There are none except for GTA online and mobile releases of old games They had I believe 4,000 people developing RDR2. The size of the studio or game is irrelevant, what matters is that one studio chose to focus itself to one project. This one is spread thin, making cashgrabs.

    My example is "flawed on so many levels", yet you only mention two, both being more of a result of your own lack of knowledge.

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    You don't have a point, you've got a petty insult and a "could". There's simply no reason to believe those resources would be transferred to TWW. There's simply no reason to believe that this would be the case. Petty insults don't change that. As I said as far as we know Saga has no affect on TWW. "Could" does not change this.

    Now, if you want to have a discussion I'm happy to, if you're going to keep hurling insults then I'm simply not interested.
    Once again you ignore my whole comment and get hung up on a tiny part of it. My point is simple and straightforward. It is irrelevant where those resources go, my point is that they could and should go to Warhammer. Saying they might not doesn't invalidate that. It is you who doesn't get the point, and doesn't have one himself.
    Could and should go to Warhammer... why? Don't get me wrong I like WH but that doesn't mean I'm willing to take a dump on those who don't. The last 2 Saga games sold well, it makes CA money, that's what companies like to do, I'm surprised you don't know this.
    Haha EA limes to make money and churn out games yearly and so do many others and evidence has shown it destroys the brand and all you have left is hollow games that don’t dig deep. Most memorable games I played are ones that aren’t released annually.
    EA and every other game company. CA's main releases are very rarely done within a year, however, they are a much larger company these days with Sega backing them up.

    What's wrong? Are you after the good old days? Let me tell you a quick story.. one day there was a game developer called CA, who owned one of the most popular PC strategy games and had very high sells whenever it was released. They were so popular, in fact, CA went out of business and Sega offered to take them over. The moral of this story is, it doesn't matter how good your game is, if you don't inject a sense of realism you go bust.

    This is the main reason why CA very rarely take business advise from the people on this forum.. they appreciate you playing the game and all but just don't get too upset when they ignore your quality business advice.
    And look at the current state of gaming now...shallower and yearly..no thanks I can wait for a good game but will never accept cheaper experiences.
    The state of gaming now? You mean flushed with more talent and more great products than ever? I understand the whole nostalgia thing, time makes things that are fondly remembered rose tinted. That said I've got absolutely no desire to go back to the days where broken games couldn't be patched, where the variety in gaming was far more restricted, where it wasn't so easy for independent developers to make and sell their products. You're focusing on a small section of the market and saying it represents the whole when it simply does not.

    Hell, gaming's looking ever more brighter. Epic taking on Steam has the potential to result in far greater margins for game makers (steam takes a 30% cut, Epic takes a 12% cut) which in a few years could result in far more investment in games from producers.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • agentbermy441agentbermy441 Posts: 18Registered Users
    edited September 22

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    How ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that Rockstar was putting all their resources into Red Dead Redemption 2, and not supporting and developing their other games? Beyond that the potential market size for a Total War game is probably 15% of what Red Dead Redemption 2 could target. Your example is flawed on so many levels.

    You are right though, CA "could" put all their resources into WH. If they did they would see diminishing returns on their investments and make less money than if they developed multiple games. TW:Warhammer 2 already is the best game of its type in the market.
    "Other games". There are none except for GTA online and mobile releases of old games They had I believe 4,000 people developing RDR2. The size of the studio or game is irrelevant, what matters is that one studio chose to focus itself to one project. This one is spread thin, making cashgrabs.

    My example is "flawed on so many levels", yet you only mention two, both being more of a result of your own lack of knowledge.

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    You don't have a point, you've got a petty insult and a "could". There's simply no reason to believe those resources would be transferred to TWW. There's simply no reason to believe that this would be the case. Petty insults don't change that. As I said as far as we know Saga has no affect on TWW. "Could" does not change this.

    Now, if you want to have a discussion I'm happy to, if you're going to keep hurling insults then I'm simply not interested.
    Once again you ignore my whole comment and get hung up on a tiny part of it. My point is simple and straightforward. It is irrelevant where those resources go, my point is that they could and should go to Warhammer. Saying they might not doesn't invalidate that. It is you who doesn't get the point, and doesn't have one himself.
    Could and should go to Warhammer... why? Don't get me wrong I like WH but that doesn't mean I'm willing to take a dump on those who don't. The last 2 Saga games sold well, it makes CA money, that's what companies like to do, I'm surprised you don't know this.
    Haha EA limes to make money and churn out games yearly and so do many others and evidence has shown it destroys the brand and all you have left is hollow games that don’t dig deep. Most memorable games I played are ones that aren’t released annually.
    EA and every other game company. CA's main releases are very rarely done within a year, however, they are a much larger company these days with Sega backing them up.

    What's wrong? Are you after the good old days? Let me tell you a quick story.. one day there was a game developer called CA, who owned one of the most popular PC strategy games and had very high sells whenever it was released. They were so popular, in fact, CA went out of business and Sega offered to take them over. The moral of this story is, it doesn't matter how good your game is, if you don't inject a sense of realism you go bust.

    This is the main reason why CA very rarely take business advise from the people on this forum.. they appreciate you playing the game and all but just don't get too upset when they ignore your quality business advice.
    And look at the current state of gaming now...shallower and yearly..no thanks I can wait for a good game but will never accept cheaper experiences.
    The state of gaming now? You mean flushed with more talent and more great products than ever? I understand the whole nostalgia thing, time makes things that are fondly remembered rose tinted. That said I've got absolutely no desire to go back to the days where broken games couldn't be patched, where the variety in gaming was far more restricted, where it wasn't so easy for independent developers to make and sell their products. You're focusing on a small section of the market and saying it represents the whole when it simply does not. Hell, gaming's looking ever more brighter. Epic taking on Steam has the potential to result in far greater margins for game makers (steam takes a 30% cut, Epic takes a 12% cut) which in a few years could result in far more investment in games from producers.
    Not nostalgia at all I just know “hardcore” strategy and turn based games have gone down hill with the rise of the short attention gamers nowadays. We probably have vastly different standards of what a quality game is and quite frankly I can on my fingers how much good games there are out of all genre’s. The only games so far that I have my eyes on in the future is bannerlord2 and hopefully star citizen. I don’t even play battle royale games. The main shooter I played was arms 3 so back to my statement. Gaming quality is is getting worse in terms of gameplay and deepness to cater to the give me now crowd. And more and more companies are catering and pushing things out more frequently which if continued will most likely head down the road of mediocrity.

    Post edited by agentbermy441 on
  • 39821739175248623982173917524862 Posts: 793Registered Users

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    How ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that Rockstar was putting all their resources into Red Dead Redemption 2, and not supporting and developing their other games? Beyond that the potential market size for a Total War game is probably 15% of what Red Dead Redemption 2 could target. Your example is flawed on so many levels.

    You are right though, CA "could" put all their resources into WH. If they did they would see diminishing returns on their investments and make less money than if they developed multiple games. TW:Warhammer 2 already is the best game of its type in the market.
    "Other games". There are none except for GTA online and mobile releases of old games They had I believe 4,000 people developing RDR2. The size of the studio or game is irrelevant, what matters is that one studio chose to focus itself to one project. This one is spread thin, making cashgrabs.

    My example is "flawed on so many levels", yet you only mention two, both being more of a result of your own lack of knowledge.

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    You don't have a point, you've got a petty insult and a "could". There's simply no reason to believe those resources would be transferred to TWW. There's simply no reason to believe that this would be the case. Petty insults don't change that. As I said as far as we know Saga has no affect on TWW. "Could" does not change this.

    Now, if you want to have a discussion I'm happy to, if you're going to keep hurling insults then I'm simply not interested.
    Once again you ignore my whole comment and get hung up on a tiny part of it. My point is simple and straightforward. It is irrelevant where those resources go, my point is that they could and should go to Warhammer. Saying they might not doesn't invalidate that. It is you who doesn't get the point, and doesn't have one himself.
    Could and should go to Warhammer... why? Don't get me wrong I like WH but that doesn't mean I'm willing to take a dump on those who don't. The last 2 Saga games sold well, it makes CA money, that's what companies like to do, I'm surprised you don't know this.
    Haha EA limes to make money and churn out games yearly and so do many others and evidence has shown it destroys the brand and all you have left is hollow games that don’t dig deep. Most memorable games I played are ones that aren’t released annually.
    EA and every other game company. CA's main releases are very rarely done within a year, however, they are a much larger company these days with Sega backing them up.

    What's wrong? Are you after the good old days? Let me tell you a quick story.. one day there was a game developer called CA, who owned one of the most popular PC strategy games and had very high sells whenever it was released. They were so popular, in fact, CA went out of business and Sega offered to take them over. The moral of this story is, it doesn't matter how good your game is, if you don't inject a sense of realism you go bust.

    This is the main reason why CA very rarely take business advise from the people on this forum.. they appreciate you playing the game and all but just don't get too upset when they ignore your quality business advice.
    And look at the current state of gaming now...shallower and yearly..no thanks I can wait for a good game but will never accept cheaper experiences.
    The state of gaming now? You mean flushed with more talent and more great products than ever? I understand the whole nostalgia thing, time makes things that are fondly remembered rose tinted. That said I've got absolutely no desire to go back to the days where broken games couldn't be patched, where the variety in gaming was far more restricted, where it wasn't so easy for independent developers to make and sell their products. You're focusing on a small section of the market and saying it represents the whole when it simply does not.

    Hell, gaming's looking ever more brighter. Epic taking on Steam has the potential to result in far greater margins for game makers (steam takes a 30% cut, Epic takes a 12% cut) which in a few years could result in far more investment in games from producers.
    Yeah, I'm sure Epic poaching games and bringing console exclusivity to PC and their awful store that doesn't even have forums or a shopping cart is doing wonderful things for gaming.
    Yearly releases shouldn't be a thing for TW. I'd rather wait 2 years or more for a more focused and complete package than a Saga game which is essentially a small scale test title for new features that might be used in new titles. It already expands the projects that they're working on and affects the manpower they use on Saga titles instead of main titles.
    No thanks, I hate how a setting of Troy is getting the Saga treatment.
  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,148Registered Users

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    How ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that Rockstar was putting all their resources into Red Dead Redemption 2, and not supporting and developing their other games? Beyond that the potential market size for a Total War game is probably 15% of what Red Dead Redemption 2 could target. Your example is flawed on so many levels.

    You are right though, CA "could" put all their resources into WH. If they did they would see diminishing returns on their investments and make less money than if they developed multiple games. TW:Warhammer 2 already is the best game of its type in the market.
    "Other games". There are none except for GTA online and mobile releases of old games They had I believe 4,000 people developing RDR2. The size of the studio or game is irrelevant, what matters is that one studio chose to focus itself to one project. This one is spread thin, making cashgrabs.

    My example is "flawed on so many levels", yet you only mention two, both being more of a result of your own lack of knowledge.

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    You don't have a point, you've got a petty insult and a "could". There's simply no reason to believe those resources would be transferred to TWW. There's simply no reason to believe that this would be the case. Petty insults don't change that. As I said as far as we know Saga has no affect on TWW. "Could" does not change this.

    Now, if you want to have a discussion I'm happy to, if you're going to keep hurling insults then I'm simply not interested.
    Once again you ignore my whole comment and get hung up on a tiny part of it. My point is simple and straightforward. It is irrelevant where those resources go, my point is that they could and should go to Warhammer. Saying they might not doesn't invalidate that. It is you who doesn't get the point, and doesn't have one himself.
    Could and should go to Warhammer... why? Don't get me wrong I like WH but that doesn't mean I'm willing to take a dump on those who don't. The last 2 Saga games sold well, it makes CA money, that's what companies like to do, I'm surprised you don't know this.
    Haha EA limes to make money and churn out games yearly and so do many others and evidence has shown it destroys the brand and all you have left is hollow games that don’t dig deep. Most memorable games I played are ones that aren’t released annually.
    EA and every other game company. CA's main releases are very rarely done within a year, however, they are a much larger company these days with Sega backing them up.

    What's wrong? Are you after the good old days? Let me tell you a quick story.. one day there was a game developer called CA, who owned one of the most popular PC strategy games and had very high sells whenever it was released. They were so popular, in fact, CA went out of business and Sega offered to take them over. The moral of this story is, it doesn't matter how good your game is, if you don't inject a sense of realism you go bust.

    This is the main reason why CA very rarely take business advise from the people on this forum.. they appreciate you playing the game and all but just don't get too upset when they ignore your quality business advice.
    And look at the current state of gaming now...shallower and yearly..no thanks I can wait for a good game but will never accept cheaper experiences.
    No not really, just better thought out controls, or certain elements unbalance the game, like elevation adding range to bow units for example.. great idea but unbalanced MP. Like I already said, the space between R2, Warhammer, 3K etc. isn't a year, nowhere near, so I don't even know what you're arguing about.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,487Registered Users
    @agentbermy441 or you're simply losing interest in gaming.

    If you look at the number of titles released by big companies it is simply less than in years past. There's more games as there's more producers. Gaming is only getting stronger. Games are only getting better.

    While what's popular waxes and wanes that's always been the case.

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    How ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that Rockstar was putting all their resources into Red Dead Redemption 2, and not supporting and developing their other games? Beyond that the potential market size for a Total War game is probably 15% of what Red Dead Redemption 2 could target. Your example is flawed on so many levels.

    You are right though, CA "could" put all their resources into WH. If they did they would see diminishing returns on their investments and make less money than if they developed multiple games. TW:Warhammer 2 already is the best game of its type in the market.
    "Other games". There are none except for GTA online and mobile releases of old games They had I believe 4,000 people developing RDR2. The size of the studio or game is irrelevant, what matters is that one studio chose to focus itself to one project. This one is spread thin, making cashgrabs.

    My example is "flawed on so many levels", yet you only mention two, both being more of a result of your own lack of knowledge.

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    You don't have a point, you've got a petty insult and a "could". There's simply no reason to believe those resources would be transferred to TWW. There's simply no reason to believe that this would be the case. Petty insults don't change that. As I said as far as we know Saga has no affect on TWW. "Could" does not change this.

    Now, if you want to have a discussion I'm happy to, if you're going to keep hurling insults then I'm simply not interested.
    Once again you ignore my whole comment and get hung up on a tiny part of it. My point is simple and straightforward. It is irrelevant where those resources go, my point is that they could and should go to Warhammer. Saying they might not doesn't invalidate that. It is you who doesn't get the point, and doesn't have one himself.
    Could and should go to Warhammer... why? Don't get me wrong I like WH but that doesn't mean I'm willing to take a dump on those who don't. The last 2 Saga games sold well, it makes CA money, that's what companies like to do, I'm surprised you don't know this.
    Haha EA limes to make money and churn out games yearly and so do many others and evidence has shown it destroys the brand and all you have left is hollow games that don’t dig deep. Most memorable games I played are ones that aren’t released annually.
    EA and every other game company. CA's main releases are very rarely done within a year, however, they are a much larger company these days with Sega backing them up.

    What's wrong? Are you after the good old days? Let me tell you a quick story.. one day there was a game developer called CA, who owned one of the most popular PC strategy games and had very high sells whenever it was released. They were so popular, in fact, CA went out of business and Sega offered to take them over. The moral of this story is, it doesn't matter how good your game is, if you don't inject a sense of realism you go bust.

    This is the main reason why CA very rarely take business advise from the people on this forum.. they appreciate you playing the game and all but just don't get too upset when they ignore your quality business advice.
    And look at the current state of gaming now...shallower and yearly..no thanks I can wait for a good game but will never accept cheaper experiences.
    The state of gaming now? You mean flushed with more talent and more great products than ever? I understand the whole nostalgia thing, time makes things that are fondly remembered rose tinted. That said I've got absolutely no desire to go back to the days where broken games couldn't be patched, where the variety in gaming was far more restricted, where it wasn't so easy for independent developers to make and sell their products. You're focusing on a small section of the market and saying it represents the whole when it simply does not.

    Hell, gaming's looking ever more brighter. Epic taking on Steam has the potential to result in far greater margins for game makers (steam takes a 30% cut, Epic takes a 12% cut) which in a few years could result in far more investment in games from producers.
    Yeah, I'm sure Epic poaching games and bringing console exclusivity to PC and their awful store that doesn't even have forums or a shopping cart is doing wonderful things for gaming.
    Yearly releases shouldn't be a thing for TW. I'd rather wait 2 years or more for a more focused and complete package than a Saga game which is essentially a small scale test title for new features that might be used in new titles. It already expands the projects that they're working on and affects the manpower they use on Saga titles instead of main titles.
    No thanks, I hate how a setting of Troy is getting the Saga treatment.
    If exclusives are the way to break Steam's monopoly and increase the revenue share for game producers then we should all be supportive of it. More money for producers benefits customers, especially when it's such a high amount.

    As far as we know Saga has no negative affect on TW.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • 39821739175248623982173917524862 Posts: 793Registered Users


    If exclusives are the way to break Steam's monopoly and increase the revenue share for game producers then we should all be supportive of it. More money for producers benefits customers, especially when it's such a high amount.

    As far as we know Saga has no negative affect on TW.

    I don't see it that way at all. EGS has done so much worse than multiple other stores that were there before it, like Origin, Uplay, GoG and Battlenet. The "monopoly' was never there. Epic are scum and anyone supporting them needs to reevaluate what it means for consumers or educate himself on the topic.
  • agentbermy441agentbermy441 Posts: 18Registered Users

    @agentbermy441 or you're simply losing interest in gaming.

    If you look at the number of titles released by big companies it is simply less than in years past. There's more games as there's more producers. Gaming is only getting stronger. Games are only getting better.

    While what's popular waxes and wanes that's always been the case.

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    How ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that Rockstar was putting all their resources into Red Dead Redemption 2, and not supporting and developing their other games? Beyond that the potential market size for a Total War game is probably 15% of what Red Dead Redemption 2 could target. Your example is flawed on so many levels.

    You are right though, CA "could" put all their resources into WH. If they did they would see diminishing returns on their investments and make less money than if they developed multiple games. TW:Warhammer 2 already is the best game of its type in the market.
    "Other games". There are none except for GTA online and mobile releases of old games They had I believe 4,000 people developing RDR2. The size of the studio or game is irrelevant, what matters is that one studio chose to focus itself to one project. This one is spread thin, making cashgrabs.

    My example is "flawed on so many levels", yet you only mention two, both being more of a result of your own lack of knowledge.

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    You don't have a point, you've got a petty insult and a "could". There's simply no reason to believe those resources would be transferred to TWW. There's simply no reason to believe that this would be the case. Petty insults don't change that. As I said as far as we know Saga has no affect on TWW. "Could" does not change this.

    Now, if you want to have a discussion I'm happy to, if you're going to keep hurling insults then I'm simply not interested.
    Once again you ignore my whole comment and get hung up on a tiny part of it. My point is simple and straightforward. It is irrelevant where those resources go, my point is that they could and should go to Warhammer. Saying they might not doesn't invalidate that. It is you who doesn't get the point, and doesn't have one himself.
    Could and should go to Warhammer... why? Don't get me wrong I like WH but that doesn't mean I'm willing to take a dump on those who don't. The last 2 Saga games sold well, it makes CA money, that's what companies like to do, I'm surprised you don't know this.
    Haha EA limes to make money and churn out games yearly and so do many others and evidence has shown it destroys the brand and all you have left is hollow games that don’t dig deep. Most memorable games I played are ones that aren’t released annually.
    EA and every other game company. CA's main releases are very rarely done within a year, however, they are a much larger company these days with Sega backing them up.

    What's wrong? Are you after the good old days? Let me tell you a quick story.. one day there was a game developer called CA, who owned one of the most popular PC strategy games and had very high sells whenever it was released. They were so popular, in fact, CA went out of business and Sega offered to take them over. The moral of this story is, it doesn't matter how good your game is, if you don't inject a sense of realism you go bust.

    This is the main reason why CA very rarely take business advise from the people on this forum.. they appreciate you playing the game and all but just don't get too upset when they ignore your quality business advice.
    And look at the current state of gaming now...shallower and yearly..no thanks I can wait for a good game but will never accept cheaper experiences.
    The state of gaming now? You mean flushed with more talent and more great products than ever? I understand the whole nostalgia thing, time makes things that are fondly remembered rose tinted. That said I've got absolutely no desire to go back to the days where broken games couldn't be patched, where the variety in gaming was far more restricted, where it wasn't so easy for independent developers to make and sell their products. You're focusing on a small section of the market and saying it represents the whole when it simply does not.

    Hell, gaming's looking ever more brighter. Epic taking on Steam has the potential to result in far greater margins for game makers (steam takes a 30% cut, Epic takes a 12% cut) which in a few years could result in far more investment in games from producers.
    Yeah, I'm sure Epic poaching games and bringing console exclusivity to PC and their awful store that doesn't even have forums or a shopping cart is doing wonderful things for gaming.
    Yearly releases shouldn't be a thing for TW. I'd rather wait 2 years or more for a more focused and complete package than a Saga game which is essentially a small scale test title for new features that might be used in new titles. It already expands the projects that they're working on and affects the manpower they use on Saga titles instead of main titles.
    No thanks, I hate how a setting of Troy is getting the Saga treatment.
    If exclusives are the way to break Steam's monopoly and increase the revenue share for game producers then we should all be supportive of it. More money for producers benefits customers, especially when it's such a high amount.

    As far as we know Saga has no negative affect on TW.
    Not at all. It's just more and more companies are catering to people who prefer shallower experiences. That is just the way games are headed even most strategy games are designed around easy to play to attract the gamers who mostly play casual games. I think Total war should not make games wear the mechanics and depth is less than what it is now. I think if they focused they could make a total war that leans more to hardcore gameplay meaning implementing more Sun tzu style teachings when it comes to battlefield advantages and disadvantages with environmental factors etc.. As I have gotten older..I am 22 I just have lost interest in games that are designed for casuals I want a more mature experience not no fortnite, moba or apm click-fest strategy abd tactics game.

  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,148Registered Users

    @agentbermy441 or you're simply losing interest in gaming.

    If you look at the number of titles released by big companies it is simply less than in years past. There's more games as there's more producers. Gaming is only getting stronger. Games are only getting better.

    While what's popular waxes and wanes that's always been the case.

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    How ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that Rockstar was putting all their resources into Red Dead Redemption 2, and not supporting and developing their other games? Beyond that the potential market size for a Total War game is probably 15% of what Red Dead Redemption 2 could target. Your example is flawed on so many levels.

    You are right though, CA "could" put all their resources into WH. If they did they would see diminishing returns on their investments and make less money than if they developed multiple games. TW:Warhammer 2 already is the best game of its type in the market.
    "Other games". There are none except for GTA online and mobile releases of old games They had I believe 4,000 people developing RDR2. The size of the studio or game is irrelevant, what matters is that one studio chose to focus itself to one project. This one is spread thin, making cashgrabs.

    My example is "flawed on so many levels", yet you only mention two, both being more of a result of your own lack of knowledge.

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    You don't have a point, you've got a petty insult and a "could". There's simply no reason to believe those resources would be transferred to TWW. There's simply no reason to believe that this would be the case. Petty insults don't change that. As I said as far as we know Saga has no affect on TWW. "Could" does not change this.

    Now, if you want to have a discussion I'm happy to, if you're going to keep hurling insults then I'm simply not interested.
    Once again you ignore my whole comment and get hung up on a tiny part of it. My point is simple and straightforward. It is irrelevant where those resources go, my point is that they could and should go to Warhammer. Saying they might not doesn't invalidate that. It is you who doesn't get the point, and doesn't have one himself.
    Could and should go to Warhammer... why? Don't get me wrong I like WH but that doesn't mean I'm willing to take a dump on those who don't. The last 2 Saga games sold well, it makes CA money, that's what companies like to do, I'm surprised you don't know this.
    Haha EA limes to make money and churn out games yearly and so do many others and evidence has shown it destroys the brand and all you have left is hollow games that don’t dig deep. Most memorable games I played are ones that aren’t released annually.
    EA and every other game company. CA's main releases are very rarely done within a year, however, they are a much larger company these days with Sega backing them up.

    What's wrong? Are you after the good old days? Let me tell you a quick story.. one day there was a game developer called CA, who owned one of the most popular PC strategy games and had very high sells whenever it was released. They were so popular, in fact, CA went out of business and Sega offered to take them over. The moral of this story is, it doesn't matter how good your game is, if you don't inject a sense of realism you go bust.

    This is the main reason why CA very rarely take business advise from the people on this forum.. they appreciate you playing the game and all but just don't get too upset when they ignore your quality business advice.
    And look at the current state of gaming now...shallower and yearly..no thanks I can wait for a good game but will never accept cheaper experiences.
    The state of gaming now? You mean flushed with more talent and more great products than ever? I understand the whole nostalgia thing, time makes things that are fondly remembered rose tinted. That said I've got absolutely no desire to go back to the days where broken games couldn't be patched, where the variety in gaming was far more restricted, where it wasn't so easy for independent developers to make and sell their products. You're focusing on a small section of the market and saying it represents the whole when it simply does not.

    Hell, gaming's looking ever more brighter. Epic taking on Steam has the potential to result in far greater margins for game makers (steam takes a 30% cut, Epic takes a 12% cut) which in a few years could result in far more investment in games from producers.
    Yeah, I'm sure Epic poaching games and bringing console exclusivity to PC and their awful store that doesn't even have forums or a shopping cart is doing wonderful things for gaming.
    Yearly releases shouldn't be a thing for TW. I'd rather wait 2 years or more for a more focused and complete package than a Saga game which is essentially a small scale test title for new features that might be used in new titles. It already expands the projects that they're working on and affects the manpower they use on Saga titles instead of main titles.
    No thanks, I hate how a setting of Troy is getting the Saga treatment.
    If exclusives are the way to break Steam's monopoly and increase the revenue share for game producers then we should all be supportive of it. More money for producers benefits customers, especially when it's such a high amount.

    As far as we know Saga has no negative affect on TW.
    Not at all. It's just more and more companies are catering to people who prefer shallower experiences. That is just the way games are headed even most strategy games are designed around easy to play to attract the gamers who mostly play casual games. I think Total war should not make games wear the mechanics and depth is less than what it is now. I think if they focused they could make a total war that leans more to hardcore gameplay meaning implementing more Sun tzu style teachings when it comes to battlefield advantages and disadvantages with environmental factors etc.. As I have gotten older..I am 22 I just have lost interest in games that are designed for casuals I want a more mature experience not no fortnite, moba or apm click-fest strategy abd tactics game.

    I don't think this is true at all, if a gamer wants a shallow experience they can just jump on a particular type of game, like a quick multiplayer on COD or something similar. people get confused when CA remove certain mechanics which they claim takes away the realism or complexity, which isn't usually the case. The effects of the high ground on archers for example, their bonuses were removed, the professional complainers started shouting.. simplifying gameplay, when in fact it was done to stop cheesing tactics. If you watch the Youtubers play against each other then you see how deep the gameplay is.. not by judging individual changes.
  • agentbermy441agentbermy441 Posts: 18Registered Users

    @agentbermy441 or you're simply losing interest in gaming.

    If you look at the number of titles released by big companies it is simply less than in years past. There's more games as there's more producers. Gaming is only getting stronger. Games are only getting better.

    While what's popular waxes and wanes that's always been the case.

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    How ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that Rockstar was putting all their resources into Red Dead Redemption 2, and not supporting and developing their other games? Beyond that the potential market size for a Total War game is probably 15% of what Red Dead Redemption 2 could target. Your example is flawed on so many levels.

    You are right though, CA "could" put all their resources into WH. If they did they would see diminishing returns on their investments and make less money than if they developed multiple games. TW:Warhammer 2 already is the best game of its type in the market.
    "Other games". There are none except for GTA online and mobile releases of old games They had I believe 4,000 people developing RDR2. The size of the studio or game is irrelevant, what matters is that one studio chose to focus itself to one project. This one is spread thin, making cashgrabs.

    My example is "flawed on so many levels", yet you only mention two, both being more of a result of your own lack of knowledge.

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    You don't have a point, you've got a petty insult and a "could". There's simply no reason to believe those resources would be transferred to TWW. There's simply no reason to believe that this would be the case. Petty insults don't change that. As I said as far as we know Saga has no affect on TWW. "Could" does not change this.

    Now, if you want to have a discussion I'm happy to, if you're going to keep hurling insults then I'm simply not interested.
    Once again you ignore my whole comment and get hung up on a tiny part of it. My point is simple and straightforward. It is irrelevant where those resources go, my point is that they could and should go to Warhammer. Saying they might not doesn't invalidate that. It is you who doesn't get the point, and doesn't have one himself.
    Could and should go to Warhammer... why? Don't get me wrong I like WH but that doesn't mean I'm willing to take a dump on those who don't. The last 2 Saga games sold well, it makes CA money, that's what companies like to do, I'm surprised you don't know this.
    Haha EA limes to make money and churn out games yearly and so do many others and evidence has shown it destroys the brand and all you have left is hollow games that don’t dig deep. Most memorable games I played are ones that aren’t released annually.
    EA and every other game company. CA's main releases are very rarely done within a year, however, they are a much larger company these days with Sega backing them up.

    What's wrong? Are you after the good old days? Let me tell you a quick story.. one day there was a game developer called CA, who owned one of the most popular PC strategy games and had very high sells whenever it was released. They were so popular, in fact, CA went out of business and Sega offered to take them over. The moral of this story is, it doesn't matter how good your game is, if you don't inject a sense of realism you go bust.

    This is the main reason why CA very rarely take business advise from the people on this forum.. they appreciate you playing the game and all but just don't get too upset when they ignore your quality business advice.
    And look at the current state of gaming now...shallower and yearly..no thanks I can wait for a good game but will never accept cheaper experiences.
    The state of gaming now? You mean flushed with more talent and more great products than ever? I understand the whole nostalgia thing, time makes things that are fondly remembered rose tinted. That said I've got absolutely no desire to go back to the days where broken games couldn't be patched, where the variety in gaming was far more restricted, where it wasn't so easy for independent developers to make and sell their products. You're focusing on a small section of the market and saying it represents the whole when it simply does not.

    Hell, gaming's looking ever more brighter. Epic taking on Steam has the potential to result in far greater margins for game makers (steam takes a 30% cut, Epic takes a 12% cut) which in a few years could result in far more investment in games from producers.
    Yeah, I'm sure Epic poaching games and bringing console exclusivity to PC and their awful store that doesn't even have forums or a shopping cart is doing wonderful things for gaming.
    Yearly releases shouldn't be a thing for TW. I'd rather wait 2 years or more for a more focused and complete package than a Saga game which is essentially a small scale test title for new features that might be used in new titles. It already expands the projects that they're working on and affects the manpower they use on Saga titles instead of main titles.
    No thanks, I hate how a setting of Troy is getting the Saga treatment.
    If exclusives are the way to break Steam's monopoly and increase the revenue share for game producers then we should all be supportive of it. More money for producers benefits customers, especially when it's such a high amount.

    As far as we know Saga has no negative affect on TW.
    Not at all. It's just more and more companies are catering to people who prefer shallower experiences. That is just the way games are headed even most strategy games are designed around easy to play to attract the gamers who mostly play casual games. I think Total war should not make games wear the mechanics and depth is less than what it is now. I think if they focused they could make a total war that leans more to hardcore gameplay meaning implementing more Sun tzu style teachings when it comes to battlefield advantages and disadvantages with environmental factors etc.. As I have gotten older..I am 22 I just have lost interest in games that are designed for casuals I want a more mature experience not no fortnite, moba or apm click-fest strategy abd tactics game.

    I don't think this is true at all, if a gamer wants a shallow experience they can just jump on a particular type of game, like a quick multiplayer on COD or something similar. people get confused when CA remove certain mechanics which they claim takes away the realism or complexity, which isn't usually the case. The effects of the high ground on archers for example, their bonuses were removed, the professional complainers started shouting.. simplifying gameplay, when in fact it was done to stop cheesing tactics. If you watch the Youtubers play against each other then you see how deep the gameplay is.. not by judging individual changes.
    You just don't get it companies dumb down games to attract casuals. Period full stop.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,487Registered Users
    @agentbermy441 "not no fortnite, moba or apm" so you do want these things?

    Fortnite and Mobas are both highly complex, highly skilled games. Yes they require fast action, but that's been true of games throughout your entire life.

    There's an entire world of gaming out there for every type of gamer. There's plenty of strategy games. That fast paced games exist doesn't make the incredibly complex Dwarf Fortress not exist. This idea that games are being dumbed down is simply false. Doom isn't a complex strategy game today and it wasn't when it first released.

    @3982173917524862 While folk are allowed to throw vitriol I don't think they should be listened to.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • agentbermy441agentbermy441 Posts: 18Registered Users

    @agentbermy441 "not no fortnite, moba or apm" so you do want these things?

    Fortnite and Mobas are both highly complex, highly skilled games. Yes they require fast action, but that's been true of games throughout your entire life.

    There's an entire world of gaming out there for every type of gamer. There's plenty of strategy games. That fast paced games exist doesn't make the incredibly complex Dwarf Fortress not exist. This idea that games are being dumbed down is simply false. Doom isn't a complex strategy game today and it wasn't when it first released.

    @3982173917524862 While folk are allowed to throw vitriol I don't think they should be listened to.

    The feeling is mutual as obviously you can’t see that gaming quality is going down hill..

  • davedave1124davedave1124 Senior Member Posts: 4,148Registered Users

    @agentbermy441 or you're simply losing interest in gaming.

    If you look at the number of titles released by big companies it is simply less than in years past. There's more games as there's more producers. Gaming is only getting stronger. Games are only getting better.

    While what's popular waxes and wanes that's always been the case.

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    How ridiculous. Do you honestly believe that Rockstar was putting all their resources into Red Dead Redemption 2, and not supporting and developing their other games? Beyond that the potential market size for a Total War game is probably 15% of what Red Dead Redemption 2 could target. Your example is flawed on so many levels.

    You are right though, CA "could" put all their resources into WH. If they did they would see diminishing returns on their investments and make less money than if they developed multiple games. TW:Warhammer 2 already is the best game of its type in the market.
    "Other games". There are none except for GTA online and mobile releases of old games They had I believe 4,000 people developing RDR2. The size of the studio or game is irrelevant, what matters is that one studio chose to focus itself to one project. This one is spread thin, making cashgrabs.

    My example is "flawed on so many levels", yet you only mention two, both being more of a result of your own lack of knowledge.

    @ConstantineZAyn "could". They could do lots of things, they could work on Rome 2 DLC, they could work on Medieval 3, they could be laid off because CA has limited resources and using them on a team that doesn't have a role isn't exactly the most logical idea.

    The suggestion that if the Saga team wasn't working on a Saga game that TWW would immediately benefit is quite simply baseless. Sure, that could be the case, but it's unlikely. If CA wanted extra resources for the TWW team then they could simply do that.

    You’re posting nonsense and ignoring my statements just for the sake of it. Go look at Red Dead Redemption 2. At some point every single rockstar studio was developing that game, 17 studios working as a single team. They could easily have those studios making cash grabs but they poured all of their resources into one excellent game. Do I need to continue walking you through this or can you process it on your own?
    You don't have a point, you've got a petty insult and a "could". There's simply no reason to believe those resources would be transferred to TWW. There's simply no reason to believe that this would be the case. Petty insults don't change that. As I said as far as we know Saga has no affect on TWW. "Could" does not change this.

    Now, if you want to have a discussion I'm happy to, if you're going to keep hurling insults then I'm simply not interested.
    Once again you ignore my whole comment and get hung up on a tiny part of it. My point is simple and straightforward. It is irrelevant where those resources go, my point is that they could and should go to Warhammer. Saying they might not doesn't invalidate that. It is you who doesn't get the point, and doesn't have one himself.
    Could and should go to Warhammer... why? Don't get me wrong I like WH but that doesn't mean I'm willing to take a dump on those who don't. The last 2 Saga games sold well, it makes CA money, that's what companies like to do, I'm surprised you don't know this.
    Haha EA limes to make money and churn out games yearly and so do many others and evidence has shown it destroys the brand and all you have left is hollow games that don’t dig deep. Most memorable games I played are ones that aren’t released annually.
    EA and every other game company. CA's main releases are very rarely done within a year, however, they are a much larger company these days with Sega backing them up.

    What's wrong? Are you after the good old days? Let me tell you a quick story.. one day there was a game developer called CA, who owned one of the most popular PC strategy games and had very high sells whenever it was released. They were so popular, in fact, CA went out of business and Sega offered to take them over. The moral of this story is, it doesn't matter how good your game is, if you don't inject a sense of realism you go bust.

    This is the main reason why CA very rarely take business advise from the people on this forum.. they appreciate you playing the game and all but just don't get too upset when they ignore your quality business advice.
    And look at the current state of gaming now...shallower and yearly..no thanks I can wait for a good game but will never accept cheaper experiences.
    The state of gaming now? You mean flushed with more talent and more great products than ever? I understand the whole nostalgia thing, time makes things that are fondly remembered rose tinted. That said I've got absolutely no desire to go back to the days where broken games couldn't be patched, where the variety in gaming was far more restricted, where it wasn't so easy for independent developers to make and sell their products. You're focusing on a small section of the market and saying it represents the whole when it simply does not.

    Hell, gaming's looking ever more brighter. Epic taking on Steam has the potential to result in far greater margins for game makers (steam takes a 30% cut, Epic takes a 12% cut) which in a few years could result in far more investment in games from producers.
    Yeah, I'm sure Epic poaching games and bringing console exclusivity to PC and their awful store that doesn't even have forums or a shopping cart is doing wonderful things for gaming.
    Yearly releases shouldn't be a thing for TW. I'd rather wait 2 years or more for a more focused and complete package than a Saga game which is essentially a small scale test title for new features that might be used in new titles. It already expands the projects that they're working on and affects the manpower they use on Saga titles instead of main titles.
    No thanks, I hate how a setting of Troy is getting the Saga treatment.
    If exclusives are the way to break Steam's monopoly and increase the revenue share for game producers then we should all be supportive of it. More money for producers benefits customers, especially when it's such a high amount.

    As far as we know Saga has no negative affect on TW.
    Not at all. It's just more and more companies are catering to people who prefer shallower experiences. That is just the way games are headed even most strategy games are designed around easy to play to attract the gamers who mostly play casual games. I think Total war should not make games wear the mechanics and depth is less than what it is now. I think if they focused they could make a total war that leans more to hardcore gameplay meaning implementing more Sun tzu style teachings when it comes to battlefield advantages and disadvantages with environmental factors etc.. As I have gotten older..I am 22 I just have lost interest in games that are designed for casuals I want a more mature experience not no fortnite, moba or apm click-fest strategy abd tactics game.

    I don't think this is true at all, if a gamer wants a shallow experience they can just jump on a particular type of game, like a quick multiplayer on COD or something similar. people get confused when CA remove certain mechanics which they claim takes away the realism or complexity, which isn't usually the case. The effects of the high ground on archers for example, their bonuses were removed, the professional complainers started shouting.. simplifying gameplay, when in fact it was done to stop cheesing tactics. If you watch the Youtubers play against each other then you see how deep the gameplay is.. not by judging individual changes.
    You just don't get it companies dumb down games to attract casuals. Period full stop.
    What? In your expert opinion?

    I can casually play Skyrim, but does that mean the mechanics are deep?
    I could easily have a casual go on the early TW releases.

    It depends on how deep the game can be rather than it's forced to be.
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,487Registered Users

    @agentbermy441 "not no fortnite, moba or apm" so you do want these things?

    Fortnite and Mobas are both highly complex, highly skilled games. Yes they require fast action, but that's been true of games throughout your entire life.

    There's an entire world of gaming out there for every type of gamer. There's plenty of strategy games. That fast paced games exist doesn't make the incredibly complex Dwarf Fortress not exist. This idea that games are being dumbed down is simply false. Doom isn't a complex strategy game today and it wasn't when it first released.

    @3982173917524862 While folk are allowed to throw vitriol I don't think they should be listened to.

    The feeling is mutual as obviously you can’t see that gaming quality is going down hill..

    I can't see it because that's simply not the case. I get you for whatever reason want it to be true but that doesn't make it so.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
Sign In or Register to comment.