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

Review from an Anonymous Developer [CA response]

17810121337

Comments

  • IlanuIlanu Junior Member Posts: 15Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross wrote: »
    Yes, patches will make the game better.

    Well, now, that's remain to be seen.
  • JTempJTemp Member Posts: 74Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross wrote: »
    As you said yourself, this is to be expected and will be addressed with the all of the information CA is able to gather now.


    These complaints are mostly just your personal preferences. There are a lot more people playing the game right now than there are people whining about it on the forums. You do the math.

    Overall rating: poor
    You make a 'pretty' post stating the obvious plus a lot of opinionated ranting.
    Your most crucial error is that, after reading, I have nothing to take away from this. I don't know what you wanted.
    All I see is a guy blowing smoke up his own **** and bashing CA to gain praise from the forum haters to boost his own ego.
    You call yourself a developer to invoke ethos but fail to provide any proof, or indeed even an argument which this is intended to support. Again, just blowing smoke up your own ****.
    You go on to praise modders, then choose to name the one who is most famous for doing the least.

    You say you hope to see replies from some enlightened thinkers. Well, we are here, and we are wondering what the point of this was.

    I'm not sure I agree with you. He very precisely put each case forward and answered in kind. It takes a developer brain to to do this. Sure some of this is opinion, but there is no doubt there are fundamental parts of the game AI that are broken that shouldn't have been, I come across these issues regularly when playing and it just breaks the joy of playing and there has been an attempt to make the game faster paced and casual, out of character for fans and the series as a whole. I am a developer myself. I have worked for many high profile UK games companies as a senior and lead developer. Much of what has been said rings true and I'm also a life long fan of the entire series and of CA so it pains me to say much of this.
  • MattiusMattius Junior Member Posts: 6Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    At last, a VERY intelligent & well thought out post!:)
    MSI GT70 0NE-467UK ONE
    i7 3630M CPU (4 Core, 8 Threads)
    NVIDIA GTX 680M 4GB GDDR5 Graphics -
    (314.22 drivers)

    16GB RAM DDR3
    Track IR4
    MSFFB2 Joystick
    Win 8 64 Bit Home
  • KrossKross Senior Member Posts: 1,187Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Badvoc wrote: »
    The community wanted Total War Rome 2, that is correct and this game is not what we wanted or were sold in the run up to release. When consumers want something they will pay for it but when what they were expecting is so far removed from that expectation then criticism is fair and justified.

    CA dropped the ball big style on this. Most only would have wanted a new shinier version of the original and this would have been a huge success, instead we got the 'new coke' of the gaming world. By the way, the game currently as it stands is broken, it's broken by it's design flaw and this will be no quick, if ever fix.
    Exactly my point. You got the game you paid for. If this was not what you expected, your expectation were wrong. Not the game.
    Your criticism is only fair and justified if they let you play a copy of the game saying it was the final release, then changed it before they gave you your copy.
    Everything you have seen so far and have based your expectations on has been alpha and beta footage which, as the disclaimers say, is subject to change.
    You were never promised anything, only shown what they were experimenting with.

    And do not speak on behalf of the entire community. I am part of it, and I do not agree with you. A lot more people are playing the game than complaining about it.
    CA dropped the ball big style on this. Most only would have wanted a new shinier version of the original and this would have been a huge success, instead we got the 'new coke' of the gaming world.
    You said it yourself. The game did not meet your personal expectations. Too bad. But just because something doesn't suit your personal tastes doesn't mean it's broken. Get over yourself. Really.
    In Hell I'll be in good company.
  • gilgalad2011gilgalad2011 Member Posts: 83Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Really good post. As a dev myself I completely agree. I hope CA fixes the issues. My collector's edition money should help with that.
  • KrossKross Senior Member Posts: 1,187Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    JohnT wrote: »
    I'm not sure I agree with you. He very precisely put each case forward and answered in kind. It takes a developer brain to to do this. Sure some of this is opinion, but there is no doubt there are fundamental parts of the game AI that are broken that shouldn't have been, I come across these issues regularly when playing and it just breaks the joy of playing and there has been an attempt to make the game faster paced and casual, out of character for fans and the series as a whole. I am a developer myself. I have worked for many high profile UK games companies as a senior and lead developer. Much of what has been said rings true and I'm also a life long fan of the entire series and of CA so it pains me to say much of this.
    Please quote any of his concerns that are constructive and objective, and not just his personal opinion.
    Could the AI be better? It always can. I haven't seen any evidence of it being 'broken', besides bugs, in my 45 hours played so far.
    there has been an attempt to make the game faster paced and casual, out of character for fans and the series as a whole.
    So the game doesn't meet your personal preferences. While that is a shame, you're the problem. Not the game. Same as everyone else, you put your personal preferences forward as proof of the game being broken or bad, but this does not make it so.

    Congratulations on being a developer, I'm sure it means a lot to you. But you fail to use your expertise to point out any objective flaws with the game, so your mentioning it is rather redundant.
    In Hell I'll be in good company.
  • BadvocBadvoc Junior Member Posts: 19Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross wrote: »
    Exactly my point. You got the game you paid for. If this was not what you expected, your expectation were wrong. Not the game.
    Your criticism is only fair and justified if they let you play a copy of the game saying it was the final release, then changed it before they gave you your copy.
    Everything you have seen so far and have based your expectations on has been alpha and beta footage which, as the disclaimers say, is subject to change.
    You were never promised anything, only shown what they were experimenting with.

    And do not speak on behalf of the entire community. I am part of it, and I do not agree with you. A lot more people are playing the game than complaining about it.


    You said it yourself. The game did not meet your personal expectations. Too bad. But just because something doesn't suit your personal tastes doesn't mean it's broken. Get over yourself. Really.

    You don't understand. Completely aside from my expectations, the game is actually broken as well. Had the game just been a playable disappointment, I wouldn't even be here, but for it to not meet expectations (despite what was marketed) and be broken - then I have a big issue and feel that criticism is warranted.
  • KillZone96ENKillZone96EN Member Posts: 37Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross wrote: »
    Exactly my point. You got the game you paid for. If this was not what you expected, your expectation were wrong. Not the game.

    Correction: If someone offers something and does not deliver later on then it is not the consumers that are in the wrong it is the game. So you're basically saying you didn't expect Carthage to be huge? You didn't expect the AI to be vastly improved? You didn't expect the battles to last longer than 10 minutes? And if we are wrong well, then they shouldn't of released those lovely trailers we saw back in September of 2012.
  • totalmasktotalmask Senior Member Posts: 164Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    This what we needdd thanks OP
    look at my started threads. that's all you need to know from this critic one.
    or my youtube profile further in to madness of this one's flavor: http://www.youtube.com/user/highluffy
  • The Great DaneThe Great Dane Senior Member Posts: 107Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Hey AnnoDev.


    Here's where's Darth at - I'm a member of the forums and he's seriously into kicking some butt in the areas where CA is lacking...

    http://www.ultimategeneral.com/
  • IlanuIlanu Junior Member Posts: 15Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross wrote: »
    Exactly my point. You got the game you paid for. If this was not what you expected, your expectation were wrong. Not the game.

    No, my expectations were built by CA advertisement. So, the game is wrong.
  • Trueno33Trueno33 Member Posts: 33Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    absolutely agree with the OP about the bad influence of sega in the series. greed out of control is actually destroying the world, not just rome...
  • KrossKross Senior Member Posts: 1,187Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Badvoc wrote: »
    You don't understand. Completely aside from my expectations, the game is actually broken as well. Had the game just been a playable disappointment, I wouldn't even be here, but for it to not meet expectations (despite what was marketed) and be broken - then I have a big issue and feel that criticism is warranted.
    How is the game broken? I am playing it (45 hours so far) and I am enjoying myself.

    If you want to be taken seriously, stop just posting your personal opinion (which this is) and present some objective proof. Saying the game is broken does not make it so.

    Present actual evidence of cases of the game being broken and I will start taking you seriously.
    At this point you've proven nothing, except that you're a hater. I have no use for that.
    I would love to discuss the game objectively with you, or anyone, but no one, not you, not the OP, cares to actually provide any evidence of your perceived issues with the game.

    I suspect this is because the issues you lot have are all just your personal preferences. Please prove me wrong.
    In Hell I'll be in good company.
  • NorsaNorsa Senior Member Posts: 997Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    @kross, funny you tell him he is wrong when 98% of all responses to his post are positive. Its not just HIS view, its the view of almost every one who have read his post.. If most of the customers are unhappy, the game is wrong! Pure and simple. On that point alone your post becomes kinda pointless.
    2%
  • KrossKross Senior Member Posts: 1,187Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    So you're basically saying you didn't expect Carthage to be huge?
    It's exactly how I thought it would be, from the footage I have seen.
    You didn't expect the AI to be vastly improved?
    In my experience, it is.
    You didn't expect the battles to last longer than 10 minutes?
    No, why would I? Were you promised they would be? I wasn't.
    you didn't expect the needless watered down features?
    I'm fine with the features that are in the game. Shame if you're not, but then, that's just your opinion.
    In Hell I'll be in good company.
  • BadvocBadvoc Junior Member Posts: 19Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross wrote: »
    How is the game broken? I am playing it (45 hours so far) and I am enjoying myself.

    If you want to be taken seriously, stop just posting your personal opinion (which this is) and present some objective proof. Saying the game is broken does not make it so.

    Present actual evidence of cases of the game being broken and I will start taking you seriously.
    At this point you've proven nothing, except that you're a hater. I have no use for that.
    I would love to discuss the game objectively with you, or anyone, but no one, not you, not the OP, cares to actually provide any evidence of your perceived issues with the game.

    I suspect this is because the issues you lot have are all just your personal preferences. Please prove me wrong.

    The AI coupled with the flag system completely break the game. Don't pretend that after 45 hours of playing you have not noticed that AI just push for these flags during battles.
  • KrossKross Senior Member Posts: 1,187Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Ilanu wrote: »
    No, my expectations were built by CA advertisement. So, the game is wrong.
    No, your expectations were built on your perception of CAs advertisement.
    In Hell I'll be in good company.
  • KillZone96ENKillZone96EN Member Posts: 37Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross wrote: »
    No, your expectations were built on your perception of CAs advertisement.
    You're a die hard Total War fan and I respect that, I know that you know this game is lacking.
  • KrossKross Senior Member Posts: 1,187Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Norsa wrote: »
    @kross, funny you tell him he is wrong when 98% of all responses to his post are positive. Its not just HIS view, its the view of almost every one who have read his post.. If most of the customers are unhappy, the game is wrong! Pure and simple. On that point alone your post becomes kinda pointless.
    This is probably because the majority of people like the game and are actually playing it.
    Only those who have something to complain about stop to go on the forums, which is why almost every single post you see after launch is filled with negativity.
    I found your analysis of customer satisfaction flawed.
    In Hell I'll be in good company.
  • KrossKross Senior Member Posts: 1,187Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Badvoc wrote: »
    The AI coupled with the flag system completely break the game. Don't pretend that after 45 hours of playing you have not noticed that AI just push for these flags during battles.
    You mean the victory points? The areas you need to hold to win the battle? You wonder why the AI is fighting to reach them?
    I am astounded.
    In Hell I'll be in good company.
  • KrossKross Senior Member Posts: 1,187Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    You're a die hard Total War fan and I respect that, I know that you know this game is lacking.
    I am not. I thought Shogun 2 was completely ****. I haven't really enjoyed any TW game since Medieval 2. Didn't buy Napoleon or that other one until years after they were released, and then barely played them. Sorry to prove you wrong.

    What I am against is people presenting their personal opinions as fact. It is detrimental to rational thinking and demeaning of us all.

    Like I said in a previous reply, I would love to have a reasonable discussion of the objective flaws of the game with any of you.
    But so far you have presented none.
    In Hell I'll be in good company.
  • JTempJTemp Member Posts: 74Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross wrote: »
    Please quote any of his concerns that are constructive and objective, and not just his personal opinion.
    Could the AI be better? It always can. I haven't seen any evidence of it being 'broken', besides bugs, in my 45 hours played so far.
    So the game doesn't meet your personal preferences. While that is a shame, you're the problem. Not the game. Same as everyone else, you put your personal preferences forward as proof of the game being broken or bad, but this does not make it so.

    Congratulations on being a developer, I'm sure it means a lot to you. But you fail to use your expertise to point out any objective flaws with the game, so your mentioning it is rather redundant.

    So the fact that the AI spends a good portion of it's time running about like a headless chicken refusing to attack, or spams armies on the world map, or the fact that units get stuck while beach landing refusing to move the unit forward or that ranged units are just too powerful or that campaigning armies obviously suffer with poor AI implementation on the world map that landing craft sail about into land geometry etc: etc: Every time I play something like this occurs.

    The problems above would be expected in Beta test but not full release.

    In addition to this many profound game play changes have been made that effect the pace of the game. Land battles are too fast negating more considered approach to play, removing siege walls has turned town centers into capture the flag, a big less than enjoyable bum rush to the center. Appointing Generals to armies vs garrison and capture points limits tactical approach and a hugely enjoyable part of earlier incarnations of the game that enjoyed a more detailed and flexible approach.

    I really don't like the 'picon' graphics of the UI. They are too remote and lack personality. They are too clever, less obvious, warm and legible than the illustrations used previously.

    I understand they have tried to evolve the series but they have done so by evolving from the less successful formula of Empire and Shogun 2. By appealing to a broader base with less expectation they have lost something important, ie it's more deliberate and methodical game play of Rome 1 that many have come to expect.

    While you might call this subjective, I would say they have taken a winning formula from Rome and Medieval Total War 2 and lost much of the personality and play ability of these earlier games in an attempt to streamline and build in faster game play. I see this as a loss and a dumbing down of the series and not an enhancement.

    I simply mentioned my role as a developer because you asked for an informed reaction to the many opinions of this thread. As a fan and someone in the industry I have as many others do heavy expectations and these have not been met.
  • Europa Barbarorum FanEuropa Barbarorum Fan Junior Member Posts: 12Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross wrote: »
    This is probably because the majority of people like the game and are actually playing it.
    Only those who have something to complain about stop to go on the forums, which is why almost every single post you see after launch is filled with negativity.
    I found your analysis of customer satisfaction flawed.

    Do you have proof of that? That's nothing but anecdotal and is not proof in any way that what you say is true. How do you know that most people playing the game have maybe stopped or played less due to the problems it has but don't come onto the forums? Short answer: you don't, so don't go around acting as if your basic assumption is fact because you've got nothing that can prove it. You talk about others presenting their opinions as fact and then go and do it yourself.
  • cheesytom1cheesytom1 Junior Member Posts: 24Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross wrote: »
    You mean the victory points? The areas you need to hold to win the battle? You wonder why the AI is fighting to reach them?
    I am astounded.

    WIth regards to victory points the video to highlight this issue is at 3:00
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SGFcUWzzO-8

    Your point which stated "the majority of people playing the game like it as they are not complaining on this board" seems to me an unreliable assumption. An example, I wasn't very happy with the game and then talked to a friend about it, he introduced me to these forums where i found others had similar issues. There is no accurate way to measure the total response from people playing RTW2 without doing a massive poll, so don't assume things you don't know.

    Do you understand the problems many people are having with this game? Are you experiencing said problems? Could you in the future be specific with regards to what aspects of this game which are regarded as 'broke' by the community on these forums are infact not 'broke' and then we can begin to have a intelligible discussion.
  • Vlad TepesVlad Tepes Senior Member Posts: 139Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Excellent topic.
    I read it carefully and agree with almost everything.:cool:
  • DonGuruDonGuru Member Posts: 58Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    OP Great review, probably summarise my feelings on all this aswell. Without all the immature negativity that comes with the usual dissapointed fanbase review. Atleast you have some understanding on the problems and why/how they can be managed.
  • KrossKross Senior Member Posts: 1,187Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    JohnT wrote: »
    So the fact that the AI spends a good portion of it's time running about like a headless chicken refusing to attack
    I have not experienced this. I find it very satisfying when it moves it's troops into position, then attack my front line with it's lightest troops followed by cavalry charges while it flanks me with archers.
    The AI can always be better, but this is not broken in any way that I can see.
    JohnT wrote:
    or the fact that units get stuck while beach landing refusing to move the unit forward
    This is a bug, not a gameplay flaw.
    JohnT wrote:
    or that ranged units are just too powerful
    I do not find ranged units too powerful. They have a devastating effect on light cavalry and light infantry (as they should), but once I move my spartan hoplites in, it takes 4 stacks focus firing on one unit to get it 1/4 down before they reach them.
    JohnT wrote:
    or that landing craft sail about into land geometry
    I have not experienced this. Sounds like a bug, not a gameplay flaw.
    JohnT wrote:
    In addition to this many profound game play changes have been made that effect the pace of the game. Land battles are too fast negating more considered approach to play, removing siege walls has turned town centers into capture the flag, a big less than enjoyable bum rush to the center. Appointing Generals to armies vs garrison and capture points limits tactical approach and a hugely enjoyable part of earlier incarnations of the game that enjoyed a more detailed and flexible approach.
    Your personal opinions. I have no problems with any of these changes.
    JohnT wrote:
    I really don't like the 'picon' graphics of the UI. They are too remote and lack personality. They are too clever, less obvious, warm and legible than the illustrations used previously.
    Your personal preferences.
    JohnT wrote:
    I understand they have tried to evolve the series but they have done so by evolving from the less successful formula of Empire and Shogun 2. By appealing to a broader base with less expectation they have lost something important, ie it's more deliberate and methodical game play of Rome 1 that many have come to expect.
    Your personal preferences.
    JohnT wrote:
    While you might call this subjective, I would say they have taken a winning formula from Rome and Medieval Total War 2 and lost much of the personality and play ability of these earlier games in an attempt to streamline and build in faster game play. I see this as a loss and a dumbing down of the series and not an enhancement.
    I would indeed call this subjective. I'm sorry you feel the game has lost something compared to the rest of the series, but I cannot accept your personal preferences as fact that the game is bad or broken.
    In Hell I'll be in good company.
  • OurGloriousLeaderOurGloriousLeader Member Posts: 62Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    lol, 'AnonDev' - anyone else doubt it?

    But I think your points stand regardless.
  • RumblefishRumblefish Senior Member Posts: 419Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross wrote: »
    How is the game broken? I am playing it (45 hours so far) and I am enjoying myself.

    If you want to be taken seriously, stop just posting your personal opinion (which this is) and present some objective proof. Saying the game is broken does not make it so.

    Present actual evidence of cases of the game being broken and I will start taking you seriously.
    At this point you've proven nothing, except that you're a hater. I have no use for that.
    I would love to discuss the game objectively with you, or anyone, but no one, not you, not the OP, cares to actually provide any evidence of your perceived issues with the game.

    I suspect this is because the issues you lot have are all just your personal preferences. Please prove me wrong.

    And how exactly is being a blnkered fanboi in denial anymore objective?
    This just might be the best thing that's happened to the TW series - http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?680834-Ancient-Empires-Attila-202BC-Project-Outline
  • heavyounceheavyounce Senior Member Posts: 454Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Ah~ Kross is a devil's advocate whose playing his logic based on absolute. The evidence he is looking for is close to something that is proven through scientific method. But, unfortunately, human brain and reactions are mostly done through empirical approach. Lets turn the table, and give us any evidence why the game is good and has no problems, with rational reason.... not rationale explaining, but literally rational approach. Cus if he was true to the statement with the idea of 'opinion', he would have known that its opinion all from the start.
This discussion has been closed.