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

I am worried that CA is struggling to handle the scope of the Warhammer Trilogy

SelakahSelakah Posts: 340Registered Users
edited November 2017 in Feedback & Suggestions
Now that both Warhammer 2 and Mortal Empires have been out for a while, it is looking more and more like CA is struggling to deal with the scope of the trilogy. The one area where I believe this is more apparent is feature parity. Simply put, the Warhammer Trilogy is unlike anything else CA have done in the past. With previous games, CA would release a handful of DLCs, maybe an expansion and then move on to the next game. With the Warhammer Trilogy, the expectation is that as we move forward throughout Warhammer 2's lifecycle and eventually into Warhammer 3, CA will continue to iterate on old content and bring everything up to the same standard of features and quality. In this regard, the Warhammer Trilogy is closer to an MMO than a stand-alone, fire-and-forget game. Warhammer 2 may have the spotlight right now, but there is still demand for additional content for Game 1 factions. Judging by comments on social media, Reddit and these forums, there is also a customer desire for reworks, new features and further polishing of Game 1 factions.

To illustrate what I mean by feature parity let's look at two new features introduced with Game 2: Rites and Army Abilities. I think that going forward, most players (myself included) expect new races (both Game 2 DLC races and Game 3 races) to release with Rites and Army Abilities. Would you be disappointed if the Tomb Kings came out of the gate with no Rites and no Army Abilities? I have seen some CA folk argue that Rites are part of what defines and makes Game 2 factions unique. The argument seems to be that Rites are to Game 2 factions what mechanics like the Book of Grudges, Brayherds or Chivalry are to Game 1 factions. I would argue that Rites provide a system that can be used to deliver race-defining features (such as Black Arks to Dark Elves), but the system itself shouldn’t be considered race-defining. To see what I mean with this, we can take some Game 1 factions and use the Rite system to deliver faction-defining features. The cumbersome Greenskin WAAAGH! mechanic, for example, could instead be replaced with several WAAAGH! rites, one of which brings forth a controllable player army , and Fightiness could be repurposed as the currency required to unlock and activate these rites. For the Beastmen, the Morrslieb cycles could be repurposed as Rites that can be activated at any time, but only provide the full extent of their benefits when Morsslieb is close. One of these rites could unlock a Brayherd, and just like the previous example, Bestial Wrath could be repurposed as rite currency and earned by winning battles. As you can see, the Rites system provides a fantastic vehicle for adding more flavor (and in some cases redesigning) Game 1 races. For this reason, it is my hope that CA will eventually add Rites to Game 1 factions.

The discussion of feature parity doesn't end at Rites though. Mortal Empires has put Game 1 races and Game 2 races on the same map, and the current feature imbalance is staggering.

Just to name a few, in no particular order of importance:
  • Siege battles that occur in settlements belonging to Game 2 factions have animated destruction of walls, towers and some town elements. These features have not made their way to Game 1 Siege maps yet; when the walls of an Empire settlement crumble in ME, they just disappear in a puff of smoke just as it happened in Game 1.
  • Siege maps for Game 2 factions have more layout variety than siege maps for Game 1 factions. None of the new Game 2 siege map layouts have found their way into Siege maps for Game 1 factions.
  • Game 2 Legendary Lords have Campaign Map dialogue, some of which is contextual (Malekith's "Abominable snow!" comes to mind). Game 1 Legendary lords don't.
  • Game 2 Lords and Legendary Lords have voiced lines when they win or lose battles, as well as when you mouse over battle options such as Attack or Retreat. Game 1 Lords and Legendary Lords don't.
  • Similar to the previous point, post-battle options also have voiced lines when the defeated faction is a Game 2 faction, but not when it is a Game 1 faction.
  • Game 2 Lords, Legendary Lords and Heroes have unique voice lines when they go on water or when they are commanded to dock. This is not the case for Game 1 factions.
  • Game 2 Lords and Legendary Lords have a standardized army skill line that allows them to focus on the units they want. They also have a unique veterancy skill (rank 7+). Furthermore, Game 2 Lords, in general, have unique and flavorful abilities. Skill trees for Game 1 Lords are bland in comparison, and often force you to spend army points on skills you don't want before you can unlock the upgrades for higher-tier troops.
  • When playing as a Game 2 faction, clicking on a Settlement will sometimes provide some contextual dialogue about the state of the town (high corruption, low public order, high public order). This does not occur with Game 1 factions.
  • All Game 2 factions have unique battle music, whereas several Game 1 factions share the same theme (the Wood Elves sharing the same battle theme as the Empire and Dwarfs is particularly weird as the theme does not fit them, in my opinion).
  • The same post-battle loot option gives better and more desirable benefits to Game 2 factions than it does to Game 1 factions. A good example of this is the "Kill Captives" option, which increases unit experience by 100 points for Game 2 factions while only providing a temporary leadership buff to Game 1 factions.
  • Similar to the above, post-battle loot is incredibly lopsided in favor of Game 2 factions. Game 2 factions typically earn 6,000 to 8,000 gold per battle whereas Game 1 factions rarely break 2,500 gold.
  • Magical items and artifacts earned while playing as Game 2 factions are, in general, far more interesting, useful and powerful than those earned while playing Game 1 factions.
  • In battle, synced animations do not play between Game 1 and Game 2 units (squigs won't eat Skaven or Elves, Trolls won't pick up Dark Elves or Lizardmen, Kroxigors won't eat Empire troops, etc.)
  • Game 2 monsters, Lords and Heroes have synced combat animations. Game 1 monsters, Lords and heroes don't. Two Giants engaged in combat will attack each other's feet.
  • In general, Game 1 factions and battle maps are not as well optimized as those of Game 2. The Vampire Counts, for example, tend to murder your FPS with the countless VFX that play in battle (especially if they bring Corpse Carts). The Empire with their Hold The Line! and their gunpowder units also suffer from this.
I am going to stop here, but you get the idea. Don't get me wrong, I love this game and I plan to ride the Warhammer Trilogy until the end. My concern is that CA doesn't have the resources to address the feature imbalance between Game 1 and Game 2 that Mortal Empires has brought to the spotlight. Or perhaps the issue is that CA never anticipated players still wanting content for Game 1 factions well after Game 2's release. The closest we have gotten to a polish pass on old content was the Foundation Update for Warhammer 1 which, quite frankly, only brought a handful of minor new things. I fear that the feature imbalance will only get worse from here on, and ultimately it will be up to modders to attempt to cobble together overhauls for the game.

My personal wish is for CA to dedicate an entire patch cycle to polishing and redesigning old content, to bring it up to par with the standards of Game 2. What are everyone's thoughts on this? Do you think the feature imbalance between Game 1 and Game 2 content is a problem?

«13

Comments

  • MrMecHMrMecH Posts: 2,103Registered Users
    edited November 2017
    It seem Mortal Empire still on Beta period. CA might be slightly balance its multiple times until the game2 is finished. I agree with you that some case such as post-battle loot option and Lord skill tree need to be improve in the same way. These look so imbalance now.

    Edit : My Minotaur could use sync kill animation as usual with new races infantry. It might be bug in some units.
    Post edited by MrMecH on
    SHUT UP GIVE US GHORGON!!!!!

  • RowYerboatRowYerboat Junior Member Posts: 955Registered Users
    Well said. It's really just an extension of what we saw with DLC races in the first game being more interesting than their base-game counterparts. There will have to be some kind of major update at some point, or by the time #3 comes out, the old factions will be truly in a bad place.
  • SelakahSelakah Posts: 340Registered Users
    edited November 2017

    It's really just an extension of what we saw with DLC races in the first game being more interesting than their base-game counterparts. There will have to be some kind of major update at some point, or by the time #3 comes out, the old factions will be truly in a bad place.

    It is definitely an extension of what we saw with Game 1 DLC, but on a much larger scale. I am of the opinion that the Foundation Update didn't do enough to bring the vanilla factions in Game 1 up to speed. While the new skill trees for the original LLs were a welcome addition, that was pretty much the extent of the changes brought by the update.

    In its current iteration, Mortal Empires feels like the blueprint for what could be one of the best Total War experiences. It just needs a lot of polish and love, as well a commitment from CA to bring all of the content up to the same standard of quality.
  • MakoTheMakoMakoTheMako Posts: 1,246Registered Users
    CA will never comprehensively overhaul Game 1, there isn't room for a profit in it and they're already stretched thin. It's a pipe dream.

    die about it

  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,454Registered Users
    edited November 2017
    It's a question of whether or not CA should bring game 1 factions up to game 2 standards, and then up to game 3 standards. I think CA should make game 3 factions as good as they can be without having to worry about the obligation to then rework the other factions already ingame. Y'all have had your time in the spotlight.
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • MakoTheMakoMakoTheMako Posts: 1,246Registered Users

    It's a question of whether or not CA should bring game 1 factions up to game 2 standards, and then up to game 3 standards. I think CA should make game 3 factions as good as they can be without having to worry about the obligation to then rework the other factions already ingame. Y'all have had your time in the spotlight.

    I've never seen anyone SUPPORT anti-consumer content creep before. Nice.

    But yeah, CA won't overhaul old stuff, it isn't profitable. People here put way more thought into the problems of the games than CA ever will.

    die about it

  • Fraxure022Fraxure022 Posts: 79Registered Users
    Selakah said:


    My personal wish is for CA to dedicate an entire patch cycle to polishing and redesigning old content, to bring it up to par with the standards of Game 2. What are everyone's thoughts on this? Do you think the feature imbalance between Game 1 and Game 2 content is a problem?

    I am 100% on board with this, and think Game III will likely need a patch cycle for the same reason as well. While not a direct money maker for CA, polishing older content serves a few indirect functions. It increases customer loyalty, which, for reasons I don't entirely understand, actually matters a great deal more in the video game industry than in many other industries. It provides incentive for the purchase of older content by new or lapsed players. It also provides the customer reason to purchase future content, especially pre-orders, as the customer can trust that the company, CA in this case, will rectify any dissatisfaction with the product. I don't think its out of line to expect this, and I don't thinks its entirely unlikely that CA will, eventually, do exactly what you are talking about.

  • KGpoopyKGpoopy Posts: 2,009Registered Users
    I think if they stick with it, and stay interested and passionate about it they can do anything. Although I believe they've made a mistake in doing a Vortex campaign in order to sell a "new game"(Vortex campaign is great though).

    While many of us may have preferred they focus efforts on expanding the foundation map, the Old World. ( 4 new races/A New World Major Expansion) That way new races, new features and mechanics and all works would go into this one map that gets expanded as the series progresses. Any and all races could get patches, updates, reworks, and anything because *that's where the focus is.
  • lucibuislucibuis Posts: 2,493Registered Users
    Very well said op
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 10,220Registered Users
    edited November 2017
    I think it is a bit early to worry.

    TW games get, since Rome 2, usually major overhauls at the end of the they circle.

    Now its true that CA workload has increased, they all new contend must be brought to 2 campaigns (at least) at once, which may or may not the reason why we haven't see DLC announcements.

    But overall I optimistic that further patches will improve balance and power of the races.

    I base this partly because I think old races will get new contend, since I see signs on the FLC array for LP with them, and there will get updated anyway.

    Now DLC'S can't apply to DLC races of game 1 and FLC is tricky since FLC to DLC races is less effective as gift then FLC to core races, but I think that we could see a LL or 2 and/or a unit or 2 for the races in question.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • MooncakeMooncake Posts: 495Registered Users
    What is likely to happen is that we get the foundation update with slightly more up to date skill trees (hope I'm not being too optimistic here) and that is it. I do agree that the content disparity is an issue and it personally makes playing game 1 factions much less enjoyable for me.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 10,220Registered Users
    Mooncake said:

    What is likely to happen is that we get the foundation update with slightly more up to date skill trees (hope I'm not being too optimistic here) and that is it. I do agree that the content disparity is an issue and it personally makes playing game 1 factions much less enjoyable for me.

    For me the only update game 1 races "need" for ME, is the update in post battle results.
    Not having the option to always replenish (while suffer the new malus for releasing captives) is a huge problem in terms of campaign flow.

    With HE, I can run from victory to victory, without much waiting and given the enemy chance to recover.
    With the Empire, I have to wait to replenish far more often, resulting in far more and harder fights afterwards.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • eomateomat Junior Member Posts: 849Registered Users
    I’m hoping they forget about the other campaign for WH3 and just spend the rest of their time focusing on the big sandbox. I love ME and it will only just get better and better as they evolve it. Haven’t gone back to the Vortex at all. Was nice but ME is were the heart is. I just want the, to spend the rest of their time with the series giving us more in terms of fully fleshed out armies, tailored battle maps, sync kills, more LL and dare I ask Legendary Heroes and more.
  • MeneldilMeneldil Posts: 3Registered Users
    Had to create an account to say that I agree.

    Right now, I have absolutely no desire to play ME, as the four original factions feel so lame and bland.

    As someone said though, it didn't start with WH2. I saw it coming as soon as the Beastmen were released: even though the DLC as a whole was kinda disappointing, the faction mecanics were a tad more interesting that what we had so far (they go the underway, horde, fightiness at the same time).

    It only got worse with the WE and, especially Norsca, a faction that isn't even in the TT, but is in game more interesting than any other, with monster hunts, god worshipping, outpost building, LL killing traits...

    It baffles me that all the old factions got was a somewhat meh fondation update. Honestly, I don't have high hopes that the WH1 will be updated in a way that will make them nearly as interesting as the Lizardmen, DE or Skavens, but heh...
  • Vanilla_GorillaVanilla_Gorilla Posts: 16,454Registered Users
    edited November 2017

    It's a question of whether or not CA should bring game 1 factions up to game 2 standards, and then up to game 3 standards. I think CA should make game 3 factions as good as they can be without having to worry about the obligation to then rework the other factions already ingame. Y'all have had your time in the spotlight.

    I've never seen anyone SUPPORT anti-consumer content creep before. Nice.

    But yeah, CA won't overhaul old stuff, it isn't profitable. People here put way more thought into the problems of the games than CA ever will.


    Anywho I'm not advocating for less content, I'm advocating for TWW3 to be as good as it can be. As far as I see it advocating for all races to be at the same standard is akin to arguing for less love for game 3 since in pure pragmatic terms making all races equivalent means time that would be spent on game 3 is spent elsewhere.
    Post edited by BillyRuffian on
    Game 3 must have variety in its core races. Ogres, Chaos Dwarfs, Kislev, and Demons of Chaos in its full iconic, glorious, undivided glory.
  • HarconnHarconn Posts: 839Registered Users
    edited November 2017
    That's a great Post and I hope @CA will see it and hopefully at least make some points right. After all it was the ME campaign I bought game 2 for. And I don't like the fact that the ME campaign is only polished to 1/3 and did not bring together game 1 and 2 features.

    Also tech trees should be overhauled a bit, since there is a clear cut between old and new races. Dwarves should i.e. have some more techs regarding Skaven and the other way around. Same goes for HE and humans.
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    My German Youtube-Channel - Let's Plays (Strategy, RPG, Indie,...): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChwblqvwr8XxKP0GzCcUb8Q
  • RikRiorikRikRiorik Posts: 6,511Registered Users
    I'll be positively surprised if after the release of game 3 if the game is not more or less considered finished apart from some specific DLCs for game 3. However there is money to be made even after. Question is how much though.
    Lord of the Undermountain and your friendly neighbourhood giant (Dwarf)
    Favourite campaigns: Clan Angrund, Followers of Nagash and the new Huntsmarshall’s Expedition
  • NopeacejustwarNopeacejustwar Posts: 861Registered Users
    You make some very good points. There is a huge disparity between the content of game 1 and 2. This makes Mortal Empires feel a bit disjointed.

    I really hope they don’t forgot the old world races. I mean take Norsca. Wow! Really intresting roster and amazing campaign mechanics and their not even a major Race. It just make the empire, dwarves, greenskins, vamps and Beastmen seem very plain. They were great in isolation, but compared to the newer content, they do suffer.
  • TotalBorehammerTotalBorehammer Posts: 858Registered Users
    edited November 2017
    Selakah said:

    Now that both Warhammer 2 and Mortal Empires have been out for a while, it is looking more and more like CA is struggling to deal with the scope of the trilogy. The one area where I believe this is more apparent is feature parity. Simply put, the Warhammer Trilogy is unlike anything else CA have done in the past. With previous games, CA would release a handful of DLCs, maybe an expansion and then move on to the next game. With the Warhammer Trilogy, the expectation is that as we move forward throughout Warhammer 2's lifecycle and eventually into Warhammer 3, CA will continue to iterate on old content and bring everything up to the same standard of features and quality. In this regard, the Warhammer Trilogy is closer to an MMO than a stand-alone, fire-and-forget game. Warhammer 2 may have the spotlight right now, but there is still demand for additional content for Game 1 factions. Judging by comments on social media, Reddit and these forums, there is also a customer desire for reworks, new features and further polishing of Game 1 factions.

    To illustrate what I mean by feature parity let's look at two new features introduced with Game 2: Rites and Army Abilities. I think that going forward, most players (myself included) expect new races (both Game 2 DLC races and Game 3 races) to release with Rites and Army Abilities. Would you be disappointed if the Tomb Kings came out of the gate with no Rites and no Army Abilities? I have seen some CA folk argue that Rites are part of what defines and makes Game 2 factions unique. The argument seems to be that Rites are to Game 2 factions what mechanics like the Book of Grudges, Brayherds or Chivalry are to Game 1 factions. I would argue that Rites provide a system that can be used to deliver race-defining features (such as Black Arks to Dark Elves), but the system itself shouldn’t be considered race-defining. To see what I mean with this, we can take some Game 1 factions and use the Rite system to deliver faction-defining features. The cumbersome Greenskin WAAAGH! mechanic, for example, could instead be replaced with several WAAAGH! rites, one of which brings forth a controllable player army , and Fightiness could be repurposed as the currency required to unlock and activate these rites. For the Beastmen, the Morrslieb cycles could be repurposed as Rites that can be activated at any time, but only provide the full extent of their benefits when Morsslieb is close. One of these rites could unlock a Brayherd, and just like the previous example, Bestial Wrath could be repurposed as rite currency and earned by winning battles. As you can see, the Rites system provides a fantastic vehicle for adding more flavor (and in some cases redesigning) Game 1 races. For this reason, it is my hope that CA will eventually add Rites to Game 1 factions.

    The discussion of feature parity doesn't end at Rites though. Mortal Empires has put Game 1 races and Game 2 races on the same map, and the current feature imbalance is staggering.

    Just to name a few, in no particular order of importance:

    • Siege battles that occur in settlements belonging to Game 2 factions have animated destruction of walls, towers and some town elements. These features have not made their way to Game 1 Siege maps yet; when the walls of an Empire settlement crumble in ME, they just disappear in a puff of smoke just as it happened in Game 1.
    • Siege maps for Game 2 factions have more layout variety than siege maps for Game 1 factions. None of the new Game 2 siege map layouts have found their way into Siege maps for Game 1 factions.
    • Game 2 Legendary Lords have Campaign Map dialogue, some of which is contextual (Malekith's "Abominable snow!" comes to mind). Game 1 Legendary lords don't.
    • Game 2 Lords and Legendary Lords have voiced lines when they win or lose battles, as well as when you mouse over battle options such as Attack or Retreat. Game 1 Lords and Legendary Lords don't.
    • Similar to the previous point, post-battle options also have voiced lines when the defeated faction is a Game 2 faction, but not when it is a Game 1 faction.
    • Game 2 Lords, Legendary Lords and Heroes have unique voice lines when they go on water or when they are commanded to dock. This is not the case for Game 1 factions.
    • Game 2 Lords and Legendary Lords have a standardized army skill line that allows them to focus on the units they want. They also have a unique veterancy skill (rank 7+). Furthermore, Game 2 Lords, in general, have unique and flavorful abilities. Skill trees for Game 1 Lords are bland in comparison, and often force you to spend army points on skills you don't want before you can unlock the upgrades for higher-tier troops.
    • When playing as a Game 2 faction, clicking on a Settlement will sometimes provide some contextual dialogue about the state of the town (high corruption, low public order, high public order). This does not occur with Game 1 factions.
    • All Game 2 factions have unique battle music, whereas several Game 1 factions share the same theme (the Wood Elves sharing the same battle theme as the Empire and Dwarfs is particularly weird as the theme does not fit them, in my opinion).
    • The same post-battle loot option gives better and more desirable benefits to Game 2 factions than it does to Game 1 factions. A good example of this is the "Kill Captives" option, which increases unit experience by 100 points for Game 2 factions while only providing a temporary leadership buff to Game 1 factions.
    • Similar to the above, post-battle loot is incredibly lopsided in favor of Game 2 factions. Game 2 factions typically earn 6,000 to 8,000 gold per battle whereas Game 1 factions rarely break 2,500 gold.
    • Magical items and artifacts earned while playing as Game 2 factions are, in general, far more interesting, useful and powerful than those earned while playing Game 1 factions.
    • In battle, synced animations do not play between Game 1 and Game 2 units (squigs won't eat Skaven or Elves, Trolls won't pick up Dark Elves or Lizardmen, Kroxigors won't eat Empire troops, etc.)
    • Game 2 monsters, Lords and Heroes have synced combat animations. Game 1 monsters, Lords and heroes don't. Two Giants engaged in combat will attack each other's feet.
    • In general, Game 1 factions and battle maps are not as well optimized as those of Game 2. The Vampire Counts, for example, tend to murder your FPS with the countless VFX that play in battle (especially if they bring Corpse Carts). The Empire with their Hold The Line! and their gunpowder units also suffer from this.
    I am going to stop here, but you get the idea. Don't get me wrong, I love this game and I plan to ride the Warhammer Trilogy until the end. My concern is that CA doesn't have the resources to address the feature imbalance between Game 1 and Game 2 that Mortal Empires has brought to the spotlight. Or perhaps the issue is that CA never anticipated players still wanting content for Game 1 factions well after Game 2's release. The closest we have gotten to a polish pass on old content was the Foundation Update for Warhammer 1 which, quite frankly, only brought a handful of minor new things. I fear that the feature imbalance will only get worse from here on, and ultimately it will be up to modders to attempt to cobble together overhauls for the game.

    My personal wish is for CA to dedicate an entire patch cycle to polishing and redesigning old content, to bring it up to par with the standards of Game 2. What are everyone's thoughts on this? Do you think the feature imbalance between Game 1 and Game 2 content is a problem?

    THANK YOU for posting what is the ost comprehensive, and damning, feature comparison I have ever seen between Game 1 and Game 2.

    What is clear is that CA, despite saying that they were committed from the very start to making a combined map where all races can duke it out in sandbox heaven, are doing half a job. They are essentially being lazy and have not done the planning you would expect a studio to do with a long-term goal in mind. Races are as you say, imbalanced, and Mortal Empires was released as an embarrassing mess. Game 1 is currently more fun to play, and that speaks volumes for how much they have ****ed it up. Of course the usual apologists will come and say they aren't comparable as Game 1 is much more mature, but the whole point is that the template was already there and many major bugs already fixed, and yet many bugs, bad AI and bad scripts that do not exist in Game 1 made it into Game 2. Regardless of new features, the gaming experience devolved.

    If CA do not sort this out by the end of Game 3 I will be extremely annoyed. They owe it to us and to themselves to do justice to this trilogy, and to make ALL races equally competitive when playing on the combined map. It should be a given that they do this, and It will be their enduring legacy that the fanbase will not be quick to forget or to forgive.

    It's a question of whether or not CA should bring game 1 factions up to game 2 standards, and then up to game 3 standards. I think CA should make game 3 factions as good as they can be without having to worry about the obligation to then rework the other factions already ingame. Y'all have had your time in the spotlight.

    You give every impression that you are against this game evolving over time. That's sad.

    It's a question of whether or not CA should bring game 1 factions up to game 2 standards, and then up to game 3 standards. I think CA should make game 3 factions as good as they can be without having to worry about the obligation to then rework the other factions already ingame. Y'all have had your time in the spotlight.

    I've never seen anyone SUPPORT anti-consumer content creep before. Nice.

    But yeah, CA won't overhaul old stuff, it isn't profitable. People here put way more thought into the problems of the games than CA ever will.
    You really underestimate the power of consumer pressure, because if people really kicked up a fuss, bombarded them on Twitter and Facebook, there is a chance they would at least make some compromises. Many studios have bowed to pressure from the userbase before.
    CA have a Facebook page... use the comments section of their posts and express your thoughts on ME poor quality/delays etc https://www.facebook.com/CreativeAssembly/ :)
  • HarlecHarlec Posts: 297Registered Users
    I do not see the need for any kind of pressure at this point.

    Yes, ME fells a bit beta right now... BUT it is a FLC, a bonus.

    TWW1 was great in the end, the foundation upgrade was really nice and I had a lot of fun.
    (Yes, i also wished for a little bit more radical rework but all in all it was good.)
    TWW2 is different in a good way, the world and battle map are both great.
    (I still hate the grey blue UI and the High elves carnival towers.)

    I will wait for the ME Foundation/Norsca Update... and probably the first DLC.
    After that I will take a look.

    P.S.: It crossed my mind that games are really fractured these days.
    I buy a game, give it a spin for some days and then decide that I will revisit it in 6 Month with patches and DLC's.
    I do that with a lot of games...
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,947Registered Users
    I agree with you. It's obvious CA has had better ideas going on with the trilogy, and it's also kinda understandable they don't have the resources to retrofit them, but it's still bad.
  • RazzlieRazzlie Posts: 39Registered Users
    It's borderline a scam considering the mega-campaign was in CA's own words the selling point for the trilogy, and then it's revealed it's a hasty mess put together as an afterthought.

    Looking at OP's list I have no doubts that CA will never ever fix that list of issues. If they cared to, they would have done so when developing it.

    The reason why things are like this is because their model is based on churning out new games and expansions constantly, not sticking with a title and polishing it like PDX does, so you get a mess like this that just won't get looked at while new games and DLC are being pushed even as we speak.

    That's where their interest lies.
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,947Registered Users

    CA will never comprehensively overhaul Game 1, there isn't room for a profit in it and they're already stretched thin. It's a pipe dream.

    The whole point of ME requiring the two games is that they think game one will still be profitable.
  • HarconnHarconn Posts: 839Registered Users
    edited November 2017
    Harlec said:

    I do not see the need for any kind of pressure at this point.

    Yes, ME fells a bit beta right now... BUT it is a FLC, a bonus.

    No, it's not a FLC, it was the main reason I bought game 2 since it was already promised before release and ofc in the long run it will be the main campaign to be plaid, not Vortex. Also what do u think? That a company really gives away something for free out of generosity? They calculate FLCs in the price of their paid products of course. ME hoiwever was part of game 2 imo.
    Razzlie said:

    It's borderline a scam considering the mega-campaign was in CA's own words the selling point for the trilogy, and then it's revealed it's a hasty mess put together as an afterthought.

    This!
    _______________________________________________________________________________________________________

    My German Youtube-Channel - Let's Plays (Strategy, RPG, Indie,...): https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChwblqvwr8XxKP0GzCcUb8Q
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,947Registered Users
    Razzlie said:

    like PDX does

    PDX releases a DLC with EVERY patch. It's how they finance it.
  • FranzSaxonFranzSaxon Posts: 2,357Registered Users
    Amazing post. Amazing points. Seriously you deserve praise for this. Everyone needs to look at this.
  • andreii707andreii707 Constanta, RomaniaPosts: 624Registered Users
    It is indeed a good question, whether or not they will go back to the first game and the second once the third releases. The love Rome II is currently receiving is a good sign and it does mean we might see some newer mechanics added to the older races.

    Problem is a lot of these changes would require more work that just mechanics, I'd imagine gettings the voice actors from game 1 to record more lines would cost a lot, as would designing new maps. Game 1 is already really good but game 2 shows it can be even better of course but I am worried we might not see everything reworked.

    Time will tell.

    It's a question of whether or not CA should bring game 1 factions up to game 2 standards, and then up to game 3 standards. I think CA should make game 3 factions as good as they can be without having to worry about the obligation to then rework the other factions already ingame. Y'all have had your time in the spotlight.

    You make it sounds like a competition between races but it's not that. I am sure they will make them as good as they can be, they will most likely get newer mechanics and improvements, they need a selling point after all.
    "Don't leave for tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow." - Will find the author of the quote some other time.
  • RazzlieRazzlie Posts: 39Registered Users
    Xenos7 said:

    Razzlie said:

    like PDX does

    PDX releases a DLC with EVERY patch. It's how they finance it.
    Not every patch, it's more like every other patch.

    And yes, that's why they keep polishing and fixing a game for a long time, which is what CA explicitly does not do, they use the traditional model of pumping out games and moving on to the next new thing.

    That's why I'm certain all this stuff just isn't going to get CA to look back at it and fix it properly to what it's really supposed to be.

    The scale of this project isn't compatible with their model in the end.
  • SiWISiWI Senior Member Posts: 10,220Registered Users
    edited November 2017
    Harconn said:

    Harlec said:

    I do not see the need for any kind of pressure at this point.

    Yes, ME fells a bit beta right now... BUT it is a FLC, a bonus.

    No, it's not a FLC,
    You downloaded it and didn't paid extra for it.
    It is Free DownLoadableC.ondent


    it was the main reason I bought game 2 since it was already promised before release and ofc in the long run it will be the main campaign to be plaid, not Vortex.

    But that doesn't change that
    A. you still got a full game campaign with WH 2, worth pretty much as much as any TW.
    B. you didn't paid extra for it.
    you got 3 TW campaign for the price of 2.

    Also what do u think? That a company really gives away something for free out of generosity? They calculate FLCs in the price of their paid products of course. ME hoiwever was part of game 2 imo.

    Oh how clever of you, since CA has to pay to make the FLC with things they sell, it isn't flc for you. Unless you are CA, this makes little sense, since you still didn't paid for it any extra, but hey.
    Well first. congratulation that you realize that it doesn't materialize out of nowhere.

    Shame that you turn this in a entitlement.
    Ratling_Guns.gif?t=1554385892
  • Xenos7Xenos7 Posts: 4,947Registered Users
    Razzlie said:

    Xenos7 said:

    Razzlie said:

    like PDX does

    PDX releases a DLC with EVERY patch. It's how they finance it.
    Not every patch, it's more like every other patch.

    And yes, that's why they keep polishing and fixing a game for a long time, which is what CA explicitly does not do, they use the traditional model of pumping out games and moving on to the next new thing.

    That's why I'm certain all this stuff just isn't going to get CA to look back at it and fix it properly to what it's really supposed to be.

    The scale of this project isn't compatible with their model in the end.
    I'm sure they would be more than happy to release a PDX-level DLC barrage if people didn't review bomb them back in the day.

Leave a Comment

BoldItalicStrikethroughOrdered listUnordered list
Emoji
Image
Align leftAlign centerAlign rightToggle HTML viewToggle full pageToggle lights
Drop image/file