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]

18911131437

Comments

  • Europa Barbarorum FanEuropa Barbarorum Fan Junior Member Posts: 12Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Wow Kross, is CA or Sega paying you to come here and defend the game to your last breath? It's not all doom and gloom but there are quite a few problems being caused by major bugs and poor design decisions along with a lack of testing that have upset people, but you're acting as if it's all unicorns and roses. I don't get how some people become so emotionally attached to a game that they go out of their way to attack anyone who has issues with it (and the same goes for the extremes on the other side of course, but the OP was definitely not one of those types).

    Give it up man, I don't know what you think you're accomplishing here by trying to tell everyone who agrees with the OP that they're so wrong and you're so right but it's not getting anywhere and I seriously doubt anyone's opinion of the game has been changed by your crusade.
  • KrossKross Senior Member Posts: 1,187Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    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.
    I do not have any proof, which is why I said probably.
    Kross wrote:
    This is probably because the majority of people like the game and are actually playing it.
    See, unlike you, I don't have any problems admitting when what I say is opinion, not fact.

    You get points for effort, even if your reprisal is baseless.

    If you're interested, my opinion is based on the Steam statistics which show that 34% of people who bought the game have played more than 10 hours in the first couple of days since the game was released. Considering most people probably have school, jobs and/or families, I find this a fair amount and an indication that a lot of people enjoy playing the game.
    In Hell I'll be in good company.
  • JTempJTemp Member Posts: 74Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross wrote: »
    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.


    This is a bug, not a gameplay flaw.


    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.


    I have not experienced this. Sounds like a bug, not a gameplay flaw.


    Your personal opinions. I have no problems with any of these changes.


    Your personal preferences.


    Your personal preferences.


    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.

    Perhaps your expectations for the game are just too low and your willing to accept a poor game experience. Your opinion isn't just subjective as mine is but contradictory. Considering you say that like me your preference is for the original Rome and ME2, then this latest opus by CA is a far from that.
  • totalmasktotalmask Senior Member Posts: 164Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Please make this thread sticky.
    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
  • Ragnar BlackmaneRagnar Blackmane Banned Posts: 43Banned 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.
    I can understand why the AI tries to reach the victory point. What I do not understand is why the AI charges it's ranged units into my meele battle line while doing that.
  • KrossKross Senior Member Posts: 1,187Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    cheesytom1 wrote: »
    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.
    Like I just posted in another reply, this was clearly my personal opinion. It is based on the numbers provided by Steam which show that 34% of people who own the game have played more than 10 hours in the first couple of days since release, while the number of people who have visited the forums number a few thousand.
    cheesytom1 wrote:
    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.
    Errr.. My point is exactly that people are not proving any problems. They provide no evidence which the rest of us can review and discuss. They say the game is broken and I am expected to accept this as fact.

    I am awaiting this evidence so we can have an intelligible discussion, but based on this response, I'm not sure you could take part in it.
    In Hell I'll be in good company.
  • Streen15Streen15 Junior Member Posts: 22Registered 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.

    Agreed and /signed. Count me as one of the people too busy to come in and reply to negative posts. Oh hell yeah it has issues, but show me a Total War game that didn't on launch. Oh well, can't fight the negativity radiating from the forums. Going back to enjoying my tea and killing some romans. See you all. Have fun agreeing with each other how terrible the game is and boycotting the next game.

    P.S. Anyone remember the shield bug from Medieval II? Where the shield would actually lower your unit's armor value? Ah, the good old days of bug-free TW games.
  • KrossKross Senior Member Posts: 1,187Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Rumblefish wrote: »
    And how exactly is being a blnkered fanboi in denial anymore objective?
    Aah! Of course! Now I see! I was wrong all along. Thank you for providing evidence of the game being objectively broken which is what I have been missing all along. How foolish I have been.
    In Hell I'll be in good company.
  • IlanuIlanu Junior Member Posts: 15Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross wrote: »
    No, your expectations were built on your perception of CAs advertisement.

    Nope. It was not a "perception". Apples are apples and oranges are... well, according to CA, ****.
  • KrossKross Senior Member Posts: 1,187Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    heavyounce wrote: »
    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.
    You want evidence the game is not broken? Start it up and play it. It works.
    In Hell I'll be in good company.
  • ScionceScionce Junior Member Posts: 10Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    I have been quietly sitting here monitoring this thread for about a day now, and I feel I have to post in response to the ridiculous hypocrisies starting to flow. I left it at first as although I agreed with the post, the constant talking of one single modder was a bit of a red flag, however, although I believe AnnonDev is not him, it remains to be seen whether he's really a developer. Regardless, the post is spot on, and sure he might not have hard evidence suggesting that there was nothing more than an in-house beta, it's pretty **** obvious from the way this game plays, and the sheer amount of shoddy and insulting features implemented (AI and optimisation sure, but also in-game features such as diplomacy, politics and characters).
    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.

    Of course this game is not broken! It's all the consumer's fault. The very fact that I can't seem to play more than 5-10minutes without the game crashing is because I'm playing on a computer who's last upgrade is when it got Windows 92.. right? Except there is nothing wrong with my computer, and I have done everything I can possibly think to do on my end to rectify this. Me saying that the game is broken, doesn't make it broken; the very fact it's broken makes it broken!

    Also, don't tell me that it's all my fault for getting this game either because they still polished a ****, and frankly, a game which reportedly has 35GB stamped on its box, and only comes to 18GB is missing almost half of the product.

    Lastly, I'm sure there's a quote out there that states if I can play Shogun 2, I can play this. Well I can, and I can't.
  • heavyounceheavyounce Senior Member Posts: 454Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross wrote: »
    You want evidence the game is not broken? Start it up and play it. It works.

    Sorry, I kinda misunderstood up with your points, but your'e moving in the right direction. HOWEVER, i have to disagree with your evidence. I mean, your statistics are correct, but it doesn't still say enough whether if people really enjoy it or not. I've played 45 hours on it (do you want evidence for that too?), just to kinda get a hold of it. In my 'opinion', I would have to say it didn't live up to my expectation. Yes, my expectation is made from ads and previous TW. But you do know, despite evidence, idea of expectation is pretty important too, and I don't know how to give you an evidence on HOW MUCH expectation I had. My evidence is based on metacrtic score of 84. Don't trust the reviewers? ok, i cant prove that wrong... but truly, the reviewers gave Rome 2 lower than all TW games except for NTW..... I think people likes to make things BLACK and WHITE... I honestly feel the game is B score, comparing to A- and A for other titles... But I wont say its **** just cus its not A.

    wait... im totally lost... are we all just talking about technical issues? I was talking about the gameplay, in my opinion.
  • JTempJTemp Member Posts: 74Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross wrote: »
    You want evidence the game is not broken? Start it up and play it. It works.

    So you think that CA are going to sit there and say, eh, who cares the game loads. Whatever. It's the hard core opinion that is most vocal and the hard core and early adopters that matter most to CA. If you think that loosing features and dumbing down for the base of the consumer pyramid more used consoles and COD is a good thing, then great you've got your wish. CA know this is true, even if SEGA don't Enjoy.
  • KrossKross Senior Member Posts: 1,187Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Wow Kross, is CA or Sega paying you to come here and defend the game to your last breath? It's not all doom and gloom but there are quite a few problems being caused by major bugs and poor design decisions along with a lack of testing that have upset people, but you're acting as if it's all unicorns and roses. I don't get how some people become so emotionally attached to a game that they go out of their way to attack anyone who has issues with it (and the same goes for the extremes on the other side of course, but the OP was definitely not one of those types).

    Give it up man, I don't know what you think you're accomplishing here by trying to tell everyone who agrees with the OP that they're so wrong and you're so right but it's not getting anywhere and I seriously doubt anyone's opinion of the game has been changed by your crusade.
    I wish I was being paid. Instead I'm here trying to bring a measure of rational thinking to this forum of flamers, in my own time, when I could be playing the game, in the hopes that my efforts will make at least a few people see reason and not hate CA and miss out on their future games simply out of spite, because a few people on the forums were upset the game didn't meet their specific expectations.
    The game has a several fatal bugs and there are a number of design decisions that I do not agree with. But at the end of the day, the bugs will be fixed, and the game is what it is, whether it suits your personal preferences or not.
    If it doesn't you're free to mod it.

    I am not here to tell anyone that they're wrong and that you should put on blindfolds and enjoy the game despite the bugs and your disagreements with the design.

    But someone has to point out that CA has done a good job and has made a great game, even if it was not what some people on the forums had hoped for.
    A lot of people read these posts, and if they're all negative and bashing the game and CA for personal reasons, people who were neutral when they came here will be affected by this and could risk missing out on future great releases from CA simply because they were opinionated by reading the forums.

    This is what I'm trying to counter by pointing out that none of the concerns raised here have been constructive and objective (save for the bugs, which will be addressed), but only based in personal preferences.

    Again, if you have any objective concerns about the game you would like to discuss, I'm all ears. But all this hating serves no one.

    EDIT: I've said all I still needed to say in this reply and won't be following the thread any longer, at least for now. Time to enjoy the game.
    P.S. If any more of you would like to point out what a **** fanboy I am, or, perchance, wish to discuss something with me, I will (eventually) reply to PMs.
    In Hell I'll be in good company.
  • KillZone96ENKillZone96EN Member Posts: 37Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross wrote: »
    Aah! Of course! Now I see! I was wrong all along. Thank you for providing evidence of the game being objectively broken which is what I have been missing all along. How foolish I have been.

    You want evidence? alright.
    Here are 2 videos:

    Total war: Rome 2 battle starts at 7:25 battle ends at 13:04
    Medieval 2: Total war battle starts at 3:40 and ends at 15:38 and has to be cut short

    Can you spot the difference?
  • fieldbakerfieldbaker Member Posts: 37Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Game is broken. I actually feel deceived and robbed of my money, it plays nothing like the videos they released. This is false marketing and should be illegal.
  • KillZone96ENKillZone96EN Member Posts: 37Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Oh my and the Rome 2 battle has more men overall.
  • KillZone96ENKillZone96EN Member Posts: 37Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Btw that was evidence of short battles (which you utterly denied earlier) not the game being broken although that is what makes it so unsatisfying.
  • JTempJTemp Member Posts: 74Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross wrote: »
    I wish I was being paid. Instead I'm here trying to bring a measure of rational thinking to this forum of flamers, in my own time, when I could be playing the game, in the hopes that my efforts will make at least a few people see reason and not hate CA and miss out on their future games simply out of spite, because a few people on the forums were upset the game didn't meet their specific expectations.
    The game has a several fatal bugs and there are a number of design decisions that I do not agree with. But at the end of the day, the bugs will be fixed, and the game is what it is, whether it suits your personal preferences or not.
    If it doesn't you're free to mod it.

    I am not here to tell anyone that they're wrong and that you should put on blindfolds and enjoy the game despite the bugs and your disagreements with the design.

    But someone has to point out that CA has done a good job and has made a great game, even if it was not what some people on the forums had hoped for.
    A lot of people read these posts, and if they're all negative and bashing the game and CA for personal reasons, people who were neutral when they came here will be affected by this and could risk missing out on future great releases from CA simply because they were opinionated by reading the forums.

    This is what I'm trying to counter by pointing out that none of the concerns raised here have been constructive and objective (save for the bugs, which will be addressed), but only based in personal preferences.

    Again, if you have any objective concerns about the game you would like to discuss, I'm all ears. But all this hating serves no one.

    Lets just say, if you really like Empire, (a lot didn't by the way who are fans of the series as a whole) then you might like this, although waiting a few weeks months may give you an even better experience. If you really liked the slower, thoughtful methodical pace of ME2 and Rome, then you will probably struggle to get to grips with Rome 2. Fair?
  • laijkalaijka Senior Member Posts: 145Registered Users
    edited September 2013

    And that is why I re installed M2TW yesterday and will play that instead of R2TW until CA gets things fixed.
  • TaviTavi Senior Member Posts: 242Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Medieval 2 was a great game and it was under SEGA. Shogun 2 was great game also.
  • cheesytom1cheesytom1 Junior Member Posts: 24Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross wrote: »
    Like I just posted in another reply, this was clearly my personal opinion. It is based on the numbers provided by Steam which show that 34% of people who own the game have played more than 10 hours in the first couple of days since release, while the number of people who have visited the forums number a few thousand.


    Errr.. My point is exactly that people are not proving any problems. They provide no evidence which the rest of us can review and discuss. They say the game is broken and I am expected to accept this as fact.

    I am awaiting this evidence so we can have an intelligible discussion, but based on this response, I'm not sure you could take part in it.

    Okay a good reply IMO, i will try and summarize what i have seen are the major communities problems:

    1: UI - subjective and not a huge issue IMO
    2: Graphical issues, Frame rate issues - objective but can be fixed should CA pool resources into doing so, does prevent me from wanting to play the game (good PC, bad FPS on lowest settings).
    3: Unagressive AI - sub/objective - however, many have reported this, enough to make it a quantitatively significant complaint.
    4: Dumb Campaign AI - sub/objective - however again many have reported this, examples would be every army having almost entirely slinger units, AI attacking with 1-3 units at a time on your largest army/city resulting in lots of 'auto-resolve' battles. AI retreating from their only city with a large stack when you attack instead of defending their only city. AI declaring war on everyone.
    5: Dumb Battle AI - Objective - glitchy AI (run to attack then retreat over and over again, stand and take missile attacks 10 feet from missile units until they die, assaulting a walled settlement without any siege equipment then standing at walls aimlessly getting shot at etc.), **** tactics like running through combat infantry with ranged units in a desperate attempt to reach a capture point.
    6: Unresponsive Player units - objective - Naval battles can be unplayable due to ship units not accepting commands, land battles infantry can refuse orders too and be glitchy and slow in response.
    7: Gameplay content issues - subjective - Capture Flags in open battlefields restricting commander opportunities for using the environment to an advantage. No need in having a navy when transport ships are very strong. 'Magic' abilities dont add to an intelligent means of winning a battle, all you have to do is click a button and you gain an advantage, these can be abused too for example charging a flank with a few units and doing a "warcry" has been reported to route fully unharmed medium units, exposing the flanks and giving an enormous advantage. These abilities also add to the amount of things as a commander you have to remember to press and do which in such a fast battle system can be very tedious and quite pointless given its little addition to enriching gameplay. Lots of small issues i likely will forget in this post such as AI cheering as soon as an enemy unit routs instead of running them down, no option to turn this on or off.
    8: Fast battles - sub/objective - Most battles i have had last up to 5 mins, unless the enemy AI glitches out and just decides to stand still. This is due to extortionate unit speed for movement, low moral, high damage from allot of units. This leads to a battle where there is not much objective time of tactics after you order the first attack order for your troops. Also no time to appreciate 'troop view' feature which i personally like allot and all of the cool battle animations.
    9: "blob" battles - sub/objective - units loose coherency quickly (both historically inaccurate regarding some units and also a tactical pain). battles look messy (subjective).


    Right now that's all i can think about. Most of what i have said I have read time and time again on this forum and if you want could likely play the game and create a video database of these glitches, should i have any reason to (a CA dev wants to see it).
  • KillZone96ENKillZone96EN Member Posts: 37Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    JohnT wrote: »
    Lets just say, if you really like Empire, (a lot didn't by the way who are fans of the series as a whole) then you might like this, although waiting a few weeks months may give you an even better experience. If you really liked the slower, thoughtful methodical pace of ME2 and Rome, then you will probably struggle to get to grips with Rome 2. Fair?

    Kross has gone way in over his head, he's just blindly defending invalid points and lying through the grit of his teeth. Anyone who enjoyed the slow placed gameplay of Rome and ME2 will be less likely to enjoy 8 year old boys having scrums and running off in 30 seconds.
  • JTempJTemp Member Posts: 74Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross has gone way in over his head, he's just blindly defending invalid points and lying through the grit of his teeth. Anyone who enjoyed the slow placed gameplay of Rome and ME2 will be less likely to enjoy 8 year old boys having scrums and running off in 30 seconds.

    worth checking out Radious Battle Mod. The guy's pretty on fire at the moment and has already leveled out and changed a lot of stuff so that the AI is better balanced.
  • NorsaNorsa Senior Member Posts: 997Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Please dont let Kross derail the entire thread! If he succeeds in getting people riled up or angry and is so doing making the thread degrade into a flamewar it will be closed by the mods.
    Thats something we don't want to have happen! So, let his opinion stand as is without trying to convince him.

    Im glad someone is enjoying the game, and sad that his preferences vary so much from mine, because if it is as he say: That most people are happy campers playing the game to death then all is lost (for me, and those others who prefer, in our view, better tw games)

    @Kross, i would ask you to view angryjoes episodes where he showcase a few of the problems in the game.
    Personally I don't want to play a game where the ai does not make armies, where the few units out there never attack me in a meaningful way, or where most features are, in my opinion, dumbed down for the masses.
    The game is not as advertised, they said we would not play siege after siege, there would be more open battles. Ive had none.. Since the cities are so close i could just run from city to city slaughtering militia. (as the ai never defend, due to not building troops for their armies)

    They said you would control multiple ships in squadrons, we do not. This is making naval battles even more micro intensive. The buttons for naval does not work as it should, ramming/boarding is bugged to pieces. Even when bording option is chosen the ships want to ram. Where you have to spam click the boat to even get them to close(if they are already close to the other ship). Where they forget their orders if they make contact with another ship/unit and just freezes. Where enemy army try to get to victory point, not by charging but by running its entire army through your lines (they dont fight, they run and get slaughtered archers first without any stone/javeline tossed in my direction)
    Anyway thats how the game is for me. T_T

    These points are directly tied to the op`s post. And the different points where CA has clearly failed in providing the game in a ready state.
    That is, after all, what this thread is about
    2%
  • QuaylemanQuayleman Member Posts: 56Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Love this post.

    It makes me wonder if community managers wish they could wade into the battle and start slaying dragons (probably not; it's messy). This guy is the lone paladin doomed to eventually get overwhelmed while we all watch from relative safety.
  • VaulcanVaulcan Member Posts: 84Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross you have blatantly jumped on this post to troll and argue with any point made about game bugs, hiding behind "probablys" and thinking the game is fine because you sayed so. I would advice all not to respond to this anymore and stay on topic, were not debating weather there are bugs or not, that much is already clear even if you dont wana believe it. This thread is about putting the word out in the way Annodev has so people can understand were CA/SEGA went wrong.

    We are WAY past debating "is it broken or not"
  • NorsaNorsa Senior Member Posts: 997Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Vaulcan wrote: »
    Kross you have blatantly jumped on this post to troll and argue with any point made about game bugs, hiding behind "probablys" and thinking the game is fine because you sayed so. I would advice all not to respond to this anymore and stay on topic, were not debating weather there are bugs or not, that much is already clear even if you dont wana believe it. This thread is about putting the word out in the way Annodev has so people can understand were CA/SEGA went wrong.

    We are WAY past debating "is it broken or not"

    So true
    2%
  • AnnonDevAnnonDev Senior Member Posts: 144Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Ace Blazer wrote: »
    I appreciate the effort put into the substantial OP, and the moderating team is keeping an eye on it to make sure no flaming or useless troll posts plague the thread unlike many we've had to move; however, we do also ask that people please refrain from the more paranoid conspiracy type posts. Thank you.

    Well that's a welcome and positive response. I and others here appreciate it.

    I'd like to also say that support in removing flaming or trolling posts in a single post basis will be appreciated, rather than moving or closing a post because you see people derailing it. I have the nagging feeling that a few trolls will give a convenient excuse to remove this..

    Remove the single replies, not the post please because this is doing a lot of good for the community.

    Lastly the community is calling for an official thread from CA.
  • RumblefishRumblefish Senior Member Posts: 419Registered Users
    edited September 2013
    Kross wrote: »
    Aah! Of course! Now I see! I was wrong all along. Thank you for providing evidence of the game being objectively broken which is what I have been missing all along. How foolish I have been.

    So, you think the only concern is whether the game is technically broken? How silly. Firstly, it is broken for many people in turns of broken graphics, performance, AI and turn waiting times. But secondly, to follow your logic, if they'd released Pacman then that would have been absolutely fine because, as long as it technically worked, no complaint or observation regarding design or gameplay decisions of the game would be valid as they are not the empirical evidence that is required to satisfy you.
    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
This discussion has been closed.