6 months before release and they announce that the Chaos faction will be a separate DLC? I know this is not new news but what is new is my attitude towards this type of extortion and that is these greedy bastards will not get my money. It's as simple as that.
Are we encouraging this corporate greed and money grabs via dlc's and pre-orders because we absolutely have to have a game? Yes we are as long as you open your wallet and say 'well that's all right. I don't mind paying a little extra because company xyz and their games are so worth it'.
DLC's lead to microtransactions and microtransactions lead unfinished released products.
And unfinished release projects lead to suffering. (https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fold.wargamer.com%2Fforums%2Fsmiley%2Fobiwan.gif&hash=b554363ea6d3b0b4f414a4232880b1a4d52d2d69)
I am 1000% sure I'll be buying TW: Warhammer, and I am 150% sure I'll be buying it next Christmas on sale as an Emperor's Edition. Problem solved.
I cannot however promise I won't be all over the Deathwing game the moment it releases...
There is almost certainly some sort of greed aspect to it; I'm not going to sit here and pretend that Sega has MY well-being as a concern.
However, I think that what we are seeing is a long overdue (IMHO) increase in the price of game software. Honestly, the price of games has, if anything, decreased with the advent of bundles and sales all the time. When the price of virtually everything else has gone up, games have really stagnated.
A game like TW:Warhammer, with all of the eventual DLC, is in total probably worth far in excess of the asking price of $60 (I'm guessing). It's probably a $100 game. But gamers are going to go ape shit if the game costs more than the $60 gold standard, so the developers get around this by creating withholding content and charging for DLC.
While I don't necessarily like it, I do see the reasoning behind it, if my idea above is correct. And, as a consumer, I do have a choice in which DLC I purchase.
I don't think Sega is the great evil we all want to think them to be. Their games are pretty damn awesome, and a real bargain when it comes to cost/entertainment value.
Just a different perspective.
That's reasonable. The price of AAA games hasn't gone up appreciably while costs for development have shot past Jupiter.
Not a fan of Sega in any way, shape or form.
I have little doubt they are the ones pulling the strings when it comes to DLC and the TW series. Ditto for what they did for Company of Heroes 2.
With the general adoption of digital downloads there is no real reason to pre-order any game. Though they will keep trying with exclusive items and whatnot.
A more cogent argument here:
http://kotaku.com/5909105/stop-preordering-video-games-please
Hold strong ;)
I've reached a point that I almost refuse to buy games from large publishers.
If there's a AAA title I'm interested in I'll wait a year and get the collectors ed for $10.
I'd much rather give my money to the small devs. and indie guys who strive to make fun games *gasp, what a novel idea*
Quote from: Bardolph on December 12, 2015, 11:14:04 PM
With the general adoption of digital downloads there is no real reason to pre-order any game. Though they will keep trying with exclusive items and whatnot.
A more cogent argument here:
http://kotaku.com/5909105/stop-preordering-video-games-please
Hold strong ;)
If your plan is to pickup a game on release, then pre ordering does make sense since usually you get get a pre order discount and sometimes extras such as beta access or dlc. However, if you don't plan to buy on release and you don't care about saving some money (unless patient enough for a sale) then would agree no reason to pre order. All depends on your situation.
I'm not a fan of the setting in the first place.
Just wait for the sale.
I USUALLY wholeheartedly agree, fallout 4, witcher 3, pillars of eternity all passed me by and I was amazed to see a sale for witcher 3 recently and I shook my head at the fervour to buy them so quickly but Sega has me twice
It's total war
And while I'm on my knees ashamed at my weakness it's also warhammer - they may as well just take my soul
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on December 12, 2015, 11:44:02 PM
If your plan is to pickup a game on release, then pre ordering does make sense since usually you get get a pre order discount and sometimes extras such as beta access or dlc.
This is the issue, though. Why would anyone plan to buy a game at release, before anyone knows whether it's any good or riddled with bugs? Waiting for initial reviews/patches seems to be the wise choice here, surely?
Quote from: Huw the Poo on December 13, 2015, 03:57:33 AM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on December 12, 2015, 11:44:02 PM
If your plan is to pickup a game on release, then pre ordering does make sense since usually you get get a pre order discount and sometimes extras such as beta access or dlc.
This is the issue, though. Why would anyone plan to buy a game at release, before anyone knows whether it's any good or riddled with bugs? Waiting for initial reviews/patches seems to be the wise choice here, surely?
Because if you wait, the price goes up to maximum for a period of time. Before it starts going into sales later.
So you can either save a little on the whole package up front, wait for reviews and then suffer the full price brunt for months if you want it at that point, or wait an undisclosed amount of time (using months as a typical scale here but varies) and begin to get it for small, then larger, discounts the longer you wait.
Publishers value their immediate release sales much more. So they've been adding extras, small discounts, and the much maligned Release Day DLC to encourage such quick return on investment.
I can understand a small pre-order discount, and maybe the occasional little extra. But whole release day faction pack expansions sold separately is a bit shady. It's obviously content that has been finished along with the rest of the game by release day. Why isn't it included as part of the core game, because it's been just that through development (included)?
While the prices of these AAA titles have remained static for quite awhile, much of the overhead and distribution costs have been eliminated with digital distro. What's more, they also sell in increasingly larger quantities than they did in previous decades. The industry is a monetary behemoth with sales quantities steadily increasing over the years. These $50-$60 "AAA" titles aren't part of some niche business where disks and manuals are being put in ziplocked baggies, in some dude's garage, and being mailed out to a couple hundred people anymore. The "game prices haven't changed" reasoning isn't as cut & dried as it's made out to be when demand and sales quantities have skyrocketed so much.
There will be a deal somewhere and it will still be cheaper than titles on release for my consoles and it's total warhammer for god sake.....just gotta have it.
Quote from: Huw the Poo on December 13, 2015, 03:57:33 AM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on December 12, 2015, 11:44:02 PM
If your plan is to pickup a game on release, then pre ordering does make sense since usually you get get a pre order discount and sometimes extras such as beta access or dlc.
This is the issue, though. Why would anyone plan to buy a game at release, before anyone knows whether it's any good or riddled with bugs? Waiting for initial reviews/patches seems to be the wise choice here, surely?
Well, for there to be first impressions or reviews, someone has to buy it especially since I trust gamers over reviewers more:). And to be honest, there are just some games that the only opinion I am going to trust is my own. And if bought on steam nowadays, you can get a refund d anyway within two weeks.
If a am iffy on a game, then I certainly don't pre order but there are certain games that I know I'll do anyway so might as well save a few bucks and get some goodies.
And speaking of bugs....certainly there have been some stinkers for people, but to be honest if it wasn't for public forums, I personally wouldn't notice the majority of them and sometimes think looking in forums ruins games before I even get started. Back in the early days before the Internet, I am sure games were equally buggy but you just didn't have widespread discussions on them. And if they did have issues, you would be very lucky to receive a patch some day. Just as one recent example...the batman game. It had big issues where they even pulled the game....however I bought real cheap a played a bit .....never really encounterd the issues everyone else reported but stopped playing because of the bad press....I know that was stupid me, but it does have an impact.
Good points everyone. I get it that publishers are in it to make money. I don't mind buying DLC if it is released months later and actually brings new game concepts to the table, not just shiny new units and a new faction. What I am struggling with is what they did here with TW: Warhammer; releasing DLC on game day release and all the DLC is is just another faction and it's corresponding units. And which faction did they choose? The one most of us Warhammer geeks want to dabble with the most and that is Chaos.
I'll wait for price to come down to 10 or less or maybe 20 at most. I definitely will not purchase for full price on day one and pay the extra exorbitant fee for the Chaos faction DLC either.
Quote from: undercovergeek on December 13, 2015, 03:50:09 AM
I USUALLY wholeheartedly agree, fallout 4, witcher 3, pillars of eternity all passed me by and I was amazed to see a sale for witcher 3 recently and I shook my head at the fervour to buy them so quickly but Sega has me twice
It's total war
And while I'm on my knees ashamed at my weakness it's also warhammer - they may as well just take my soul
What he said. I have every version of TW ever made..all the way back to the original TW Rome, and MTW Kingdoms (my personal favorite).
I also have a 1500 point Orc army, and am fully prepared to DAKKA DAKKA my way through this next iteration. GREAT concept, and I just can't wait. First day purchase..and all DLC's will ALSO be first day purchase. Some games (CIV, X-COM) are just worth it to me.
Quote from: W8taminute on December 14, 2015, 06:57:18 AM
Good points everyone. I get it that publishers are in it to make money. I don't mind buying DLC if it is released months later and actually brings new game concepts to the table, not just shiny new units and a new faction. What I am struggling with is what they did here with TW: Warhammer; releasing DLC on game day release and all the DLC is is just another faction and it's corresponding units. And which faction did they choose? The one most of us Warhammer geeks want to dabble with the most and that is Chaos.
I'll wait for price to come down to 10 or less or maybe 20 at most. I definitely will not purchase for full price on day one and pay the extra exorbitant fee for the Chaos faction DLC either.
Don't be so quick to big up the chaos there - I have no interest in playing them at all and I can't be alone
dwarfs, green skins and maybe northmen here
Quote from: undercovergeek on December 14, 2015, 09:57:04 AM
Don't be so quick to big up the chaos there - I have no interest in playing them at all and I can't be alone
Unbeliever!
Joinn usssssss.
Embrace the warp.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi68.tinypic.com%2F14wermc.jpg&hash=4bda15b450077122aaff5c0b759fdceddaf352d5)
I want all the factions. ALL.
Hopefully they don't take the normal TW route and just color 90% of each faction's clothing a different color. This is Warhammer mf'ers! Each faction is very different.
Hey now, don't jinx this by posting something associated with Mark of Chaos! Man, that computer adaptation... :buck2:
I don't care about playing as Chaos, but without them as a faction it won't be Warhammer, so I expect to see them in the game as an opponent.
^From what read over at the official website Chaos is in the game. Just not as a playable faction. That is why there is a DLC so you can unlock them and play the faction for yourself.
The game has been delayed a month and the system requirement released.
http://www.gamewatcher.com/news/2016-08-03-sega-delays-total-war-warhammer-to-24th-may-full-system-requirements-revealed
SEGA and Creative Assembly announced today that it has delayed Total War: Warhammer, which was originally set to be released on 28th April, but unfortunately, it will now be released on 24th May.
The reason for the delay is because Creative Assembly don't want to rush it, as it believe this could be the best Total War game ever made.
"This could be the best Total War game we've ever made. We don't want to rush it." said Mike Simpson, Creative Director for Total War. "It's an enormous game and we also want to make absolutely sure reviewers have enough time to play it thoroughly before launch."
"Many thanks to the huge number of people who have pre-ordered and are eagerly awaiting release day. We're pulling out all the stops for you."
With the bad news now out of the way, let's talk about the official full system requirements for Total War: Warhammer, which Sega and Creative Assembly revealed to GameWatcher today. It will be the first 64bit game in the Total War franchise.
Here's a round-up of the system requirements for Minimum, Recommended and Ultra:
PC Minimum Specifications:
(Expected around 25-35 FPS on campaign map and in a 1v1, 20 units vs 20 units battle, default graphics preset set to "Low")
Operating System: Windows 7 64Bit
Processor: Intel® Core™ 2 Duo 3.0Ghz
RAM: 3GB
Hard Drive: 35 GB
Video Card: (DirectX 11) AMD Radeon HD 5770 1024MB | NVIDIA GTS 450 1024MB | Intel HD4000 @720P
Please Note: PC integrated graphics chipsets require 4GB ram, e.g. Intel HD series.
PC Recommended Specifications:
(Expected around 45-55 FPS on campaign map and in a 1v1, 20 units vs 20 units battle, default graphics preset set to "High")
Operating System: Windows 7/8.1/10 64Bit
Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-4570 3.20GHz
RAM: 8 GB
Hard Drive: 35 GB
Video Card: (DirectX 11) AMD Radeon R9 270X 2048MB | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 2048MB @1080P.
PC 60fps+ ULTRA Specifications:
(Expected 60 FPS+ on campaign map and in a 1v1, 20 units vs 20 units battle, default graphics preset set to "Ultra")
Operating System: Windows 7/8.1/10 64Bit
Processor: Intel® Core™ i7-4790K 4.0 GHz
RAM: 8 GB
Hard Drive: 35 GB
Video Card: (DirectX 11) AMD Fury X or Nvidia GTX 980 @1080P.
Ultra requires at least an AMD Fury X or Nvidia GTX 980 to run it at 1080P with 60fps, which means my GTX 970 card is out of touch, so I'll have to play it on High or get myself an 980 by May. What do you make of the system requirements? Will you be upgrading your system for Total War: Warhammer
Ouch.....
I am betting these are a tad {as with the last few titles}understated especially at higher settings/resolutions. Heck I wish they would have done a proper pike and shot game or even medieval 3 before flying rats.
I have a 980...neener neener neeeeener! :2funny:
980ti with 6 GB of ram FTW!
Quote from: Freyland on March 08, 2016, 10:32:15 AM
980ti with 6 GB of ram FTW!
Mine is a ti with 4GB of RAM, but its better looking than yours.
:'(
disappointed in the delay, but better late than never
I could wish for a more powerful processor and (especially) video card, but I knew going in that I probably wasn't going to be able to run the game on anything higher than Medium settings. Such is life...
As for the delay, I'm mildly bummed, but I'll live. ;) I'd rather the game not be rushed out and full of bugs (especially given what happened with Rome II), and I'm glad that both CA and Sega were wise enough to allow for extra time.
CA going to warhammer really is needed to shake the gameplay of the series up-because it's fallen into a rut to where every game suffers the same issues---and I imagine that might be true here as well but it's fantasy now---so bonehead A.I. moves can be explained away...afterall-they're just stupid Orcs!
It's probably worth pointing this out.
Anyone willing to hold off and not pay full price for this (or any other) game have the luxury to do so because there are people out there willing to pay full price. Without those people paying full price, on release, there's every possibility that a developer goes under (eventually). Maybe not...but maybe.
I've held off on a few games here and there and picked them up at rock bottom prices. But the truth is very likely that those games would not be able to be made for anything close to that price.
The other thing - and it was mentioned earlier in the thread - is this. I don't like paying more than £40 for a game. I can stretch to £50 and push to £60. Anything above that and the game would have to be super, super special. So in all honesty, if the game (any game) was going to cost more than my entry price, then I'm more than happy with them breaking it down in pieces.
Take for example my beloved pCars. I paid (iirc) £40 for the game. I have since bought (iirc) about £40 of DLC. I would never have bought pCars, with all that content, for £80. Bite size DLC with a bitesize price really suits my buying model.
The perception, and everyone's perception may be different, in what is a "cut down game" and what is a "fully featured game with additional content as an addon". Back in the day, you'd get a game which people would consider complete and there may well be an addon (mission pack or whatever) sold. No-one ever said it was an incomplete game they bought previously...they just went "Ooooh....new content".
Perhaps the problem is company's tell customers what's round the corner now instead of springing it on them.
As for Chaos being missing on release but available as DLC...perhaps we should look at what we do get for our money rather than what we don't get for our money?
But I am absolutely fine with the model and I don't think I'd boycott a particular game unless I was sure content (for the price the game is going for) was obviously lacking and affecting gameplay.
Just my 2 pennies.
On a game of this sort, there are fans who won't play unless they can play as (instead of only against) their favorite team.
It would be a little like next year's Madden deciding they'll release with ten teams, and make the other teams available for purchase as DLC to people who want to play them. Assume the Dolphins are included and the Titans are not. If I'm a Dolphins fan, great! If I'm a Titans fan instead (and not also), I'm going to be annoyed about paying extra to play the team I really want to play. The obvious main difference is that American football teams don't require anything like as much work to implement as different Warhammer or other fantasy or historical distinct forces. But if I wanted to play as Britain on the Company of Heroes or Combat Mission 2.0 engine, and didn't care about playing any other force, I'd be annoyed about having to buy more to play less, even though from a developer perspective it only makes sense to charge more for the efforts involved in designing and implementing such different forces. On a fantasy game, the differences will usually be much more pronounced than that.
For the people who are fans of multiple teams, or just of the gameplay itself, it isn't a big deal. For people who are buying the game to play as X, having to pay extra for X is a big deal.
I'm speaking as someone who is just happy the game is coming, and who isn't focused on only playing one team. But I imagine that's a
Quote from: JudgeDredd on March 09, 2016, 01:46:34 AM
...perhaps we should look at what we do get for our money rather than what we don't get for our money?
You can't go around the internet making sensible statements!
Luckily most people vote with their wallets and are happy to buy (or not buy) DLC as they like, rather than this (as you say) new idea that DLC means you only get half a game.
Cheers
Pip
So the answer to what are you getting for your money? An incomplete game.
In that case every game is incomplete.
Quote from: Martok on March 08, 2016, 05:59:30 PM
As for the delay, I'm mildly bummed, but I'll live. ;) I'd rather the game not be rushed out and full of bugs (especially given what happened with Rome II), and I'm glad that both CA and Sega were wise enough to allow for extra time.
I'd also rather they delayed as long as needed, for a less buggy release.
It doesn't leave me with buyer's remorse when there are fewer bugs on release day. If I pay $60 for something and then end up shelving it for 5 months while they're busy patching it, that tends to make me sour about buying early. Especially since you never know just how much
will get patched.
I think CA did a great job of sticking to a very long & intense patch process with Rome 2, after it was released. What was it.. something like 16 large updates? They even listened to their fans and removed at least one infuriatingly annoying game mechanic with Rome 2. O0 But Rome 2 was an exception, not the rule.
Since this is a new one I'm sure they'll provide more post-release tinkering than something like TW:Attila, which is just Rome 2 with new assets and a very few new mechanics shoehorned in (poorly in some cases!). But it's always best if the release isn't a shocking $60 bug festival. Especially since many gamers & reviewers will base their opinion of it on their first playthroughs, forever praising or damning it afterward on that alone. Maybe CA has wizened up in this respect?
^
i think they may have learnt their lesson with Rome 2 - someone puts a lot of time and money into making these games, i imagine champagne and balloons are bought on release day and everyone watches the feedback roll in, and they got pummelled and abused on release day - it must have been pretty demoralising to see that - yes it got fixed but they must have lost a ton of cash with people saying never again, there are still people out there asking 'if its still a buggy mess like on release' - yes most are CA trolls but theres still a lot of hate
id like to think theyve thought in one hand we have all the TW fans, and in this hand we have all the GW fans - if we get this right well be billionaires - and someone, maybe GW has said 'do not fk this up'
I doubt GW told them, "don't fk this up". I mean... look at some of the other shovelware that's been put out with GW IPs recently. ;D
My initial impression is that someone with authority at CA realized their early press release review copies were gonna be buggy, and it would show in the "Let's Play" previews that will be so prevalent on release day, or just before. So they pushed it back to fix more. Good call. I just hope they would do it again if the extra month isn't enough.
I get that someone wanting to play a particular faction may be getting an unfair rub if that particular faction is not included unless you purchase the DLC.
If I was buying an F1 game, would I think I was being ripped off if they didn't provide all the teams as available to drive? Yes, probably - but that's slightly different in the sense that they've always provided the teams for use.
However - if they were to say to me "There's two versions - 1 at £100 which comes with all teams or one that comes at £40 with Ferrari, Williams, McLaren and Mercedes" I would definitely go for the £40 game. Especially if the ability was there to add the other teams at a later date with DLC.
Perhaps the answer would be to allow people to choose which factions they want in their game?
Launch Day DLC..
What end-user thinks this is a good idea? :P
dwarves - check
elves - dont think so
empire - check
orcs - check
my boxes are pretty much ticked, im a traditionalist cannons, muskets, hammers and arrows kind of GW player - the magic weirdness of the undead and chaos always weirded me out - give me two guys smashing and hacking at each other, not some guy in a pointy hat making one all 'plaguey' - but im looking forward to marching over the mountains on their ass and turning them into meat paste
theres plenty in the gaming library to keep me going, as nef said good on them for the delay, and please have the balls to do it again if needs be
I think the term "complete game" is mostly subjective and should probably be linked to what you are paying and what you get for that.
I feel for the people as jasonpratt mentioned where they would want to play the Chaos faction and that's why I thought it may be best to let players decide what factions they want as playable in their game.
I'm for a lower entry point and build the game up. I don't want to pay £70, £100, £150 for a game because it's got all the cars and tracks the world over. I want to pay £30 for the game and add tracks and vehicles as I see fit...ala Project Cars
i think since the days of discs stuck to the front of PC magazines there hasnt been such a thing as a complete game - and its a good thing
i think today if a developer released a game and said 'we're done, thats as good as its going to get, we're happy, and we're moving onto our next game' thered be collective chaos - people expect, nay, want DLC, patches, add ons
in ye days of yore if you wanted your character to have different clothes, different voices, your favourite tank to be in a game you were waiting for the sequel for a year
DLC - i dont understand the rage. Theres some new DLC in the can for XCOM2 coming soon, 'children of anarchy' or something, some kind of make all your characters look like harley from batman, that or some german erotica convention, latex, gas masks and weird zip up face masks - couldnt care less, but you know, i dont have to buy it - its not essential.7
On the flip side, the 'just release all the races on day one' crowd, thats cool 'just wait another 6 months for the artists to make it all without ONE WORD OF COMPLAINT about the wait time'
OR
wait for the aforementioned 6 months and get the Gold pack with it all in
there is no all AND now, only some and now or all and later
I love TW, I think all you guys know that. But the series may have been around for so long that it is difficult to not repeat mistakes. Like with Empire TW CA got a lot of flak for the AI not understanding the game's massive structure. So then Napoleon was released and fans calmed down only to be riled into a frenzy by the release of Rome 2, only to be placated by the patch releases and then the Emperor's Edition. And then placated again by the release of Attila. Seems cyclical.
To quote Animal Farm, every game is incomplete at release but some games are more incomplete than others.
I think Jason nailed it on the head. Folks who are strongly invested in playing for or against one particular faction will feel the game is very incomplete. Others, not so much so...
Quote from: Gusington on March 10, 2016, 09:56:18 AM
I love TW, I think all you guys know that. But the series may have been around for so long that it is difficult to not repeat mistakes. Like with Empire TW CA got a lot of flak for the AI not understanding the game's massive structure. So then Napoleon was released and fans calmed down only to be riled into a frenzy by the release of Rome 2, only to be placated by the patch releases and then the Emperor's Edition. And then placated again by the release of Attila. Seems cyclical.
They did get Shogun 2 right out of the box.
^True. Probably the best TW title, IMHO.
Well the game has been out for a while now. Is it really worth it though? From what few let's play videos I've seen I'm not terribly impressed. I'd probably get this title if it goes on sale for under 20 but that is extremely unlikely anytime soon.
I am waiting for a sale/price drop too. Then I will swoop in and take the plunge, grab the DLCs, etc.
Quote from: W8taminute on June 10, 2016, 06:12:48 PM
Well the game has been out for a while now. Is it really worth it though? From what few let's play videos I've seen I'm not terribly impressed. I'd probably get this title if it goes on sale for under 20 but that is extremely unlikely anytime soon.
Not sure what it unimpressive if you like total war titles. The campaign map and unit graphics are awesome, the battle graphics and terrain are better than ever, you have multiple factions that all play MUCH differently, the AI is just as good as Shogun 2 and atilla. There are plenty of different units, you have a TON of RPG options with your heroes tailor making them into whatever you want, diplomacy is good. Frankly, the only thing that is "simpler" than attilla or Shogun2 is the building choices. But really, your only building stuff to either open up units, improve units or but units. Plus combat animation is good
I see people complaining that battles are over too fast. Yeah, they are...just like EVERY total war since Rome. You subscribe to one of many combat mods on the workshop and its solved
So if you like total war games, I'm not sure why you wouldn't like this one. I think a lot of it is people convincing themselves it isn't good because they don't want to buy it. That's my only guess. That and of course, some people don't like Total War games or fantasy settings.
Simply, the game is quite good. It's polished, I haven't heard of or noticed any major bugs (or minor really). It's seems to run well, etc
^All good points and I agree with you. I guess where I'm coming from is not from a position of hate bashing or anything. I've been playing total war since the first game ever came out and love this formula. It's just that right now there are so many other distractions bringing in fresh new gameplay that I'm in no hurry to pick up this title.
Quote from: mikeck on June 10, 2016, 08:29:50 PM
Quote from: W8taminute on June 10, 2016, 06:12:48 PM
Well the game has been out for a while now. Is it really worth it though? From what few let's play videos I've seen I'm not terribly impressed. I'd probably get this title if it goes on sale for under 20 but that is extremely unlikely anytime soon.
Not sure what it unimpressive if you like total war titles. The campaign map and unit graphics are awesome, the battle graphics and terrain are better than ever, you have multiple factions that all play MUCH differently, the AI is just as good as Shogun 2 and atilla. There are plenty of different units, you have a TON of RPG options with your heroes tailor making them into whatever you want, diplomacy is good. Frankly, the only thing that is "simpler" than attilla or Shogun2 is the building choices. But really, your only building stuff to either open up units, improve units or but units. Plus combat animation is good
I see people complaining that battles are over too fast. Yeah, they are...just like EVERY total war since Rome. You subscribe to one of many combat mods on the workshop and its solved
So if you like total war games, I'm not sure why you wouldn't like this one. I think a lot of it is people convincing themselves it isn't good because they don't want to buy it. That's my only guess. That and of course, some people don't like Total War games or fantasy settings.
Simply, the game is quite good. It's polished, I haven't heard of or noticed any major bugs (or minor really). It's seems to run well, etc
+1
I think people are trying to convince themselves that they don't need another game just yet. I do that often, and sometimes successfully.
But this one breaks the mold enough, and is as bug-free as a TW release has ever been. Therefore I have no regrets in purchasing it, unlike many other new games I've picked up in recent years.
My other speculation is that it's enough of a change from the usual TW stuff that a few long-time fans/players of the series are skeerd of leaving their cozy little box. I usually reserve such jests for the ones who constantly stick to WW2 stuff, but there are similarities. :P
It's excellent, if you love Total War you will love it and even more so if you love Warhammer.
...
Quote from: W8taminute on June 10, 2016, 11:43:42 PM
^All good points and I agree with you. I guess where I'm coming from is not from a position of hate bashing or anything. I've been playing total war since the first game ever came out and love this formula. It's just that right now there are so many other distractions bringing in fresh new gameplay that I'm in no hurry to pick up this title.
No, I get it. I'm just saying that if you like TW and don't mind a fantasy setting, this is a great game and far more polished/bug free than almost all previous releases.
But I know where your coming from...I picked up Warhammer, HOI4, and Stellaris all within two weeks of each other. Can't get around to playing something before another game comes along
I absolutely hate warhammer, so I passed on this, but I will buy this for the 2016 christmas sale because I bet there will be an awesome game of thrones total conversion mod that I will just have to play. Not to mention all the other awesome total conversion mods that will probaly come out. For that alone I will be owning this at some point, just not today at full price.
^From your keyboard to the WH gaming gods' ear!
You hate Warhammer eh?
I'm not into WH. But not too bothered as it's pretty much similar to any fantasy theme out there.
I'm strictly a new initiate when it comes to both WH and WH40k, which is one of the main reasons why I didn't by the TW game yet.
Quote from: Gusington on June 11, 2016, 06:56:27 PM
I'm strictly a new initiate when it comes to both WH and WH40k, which is one of the main reasons why I didn't by the TW game yet.
Warhammer Fantasy is like many other high magic versions of Tolkien-esque fantasy. Except the humans are in a very late medieval, or early renaissance period, as opposed to the usual medieval type settings. The humies have some rare hand-built guns and cannon. The "Dwarfs" are all that plus some extra Steampunkery. A bit darker flavor than most due to some of the chaos gods/demons themes, and the accompanying witch hunter things on the other side.
Not really all that different from other High Fantasy, in general, and it's magic is more Tolkien-esque than others (D&D and spin-offs like BG series) since using it is playing with fire (or the Winds Of Chaos in this case), and can have negative repercussions if not being careful. Like being tempted by the dark side of the force, to give another example, but the dark side = Chaos in Warhammer.
WH40K is the odd setting. It can be confusing until you spend some time in it. Insane Sci-Fantasy in the year 40,000. But with many fantasy tropes, such as Orks and Elves, mixed with later movie & novel inspired stuff like Aliens and Terminator. Huge mixed bag which may take time to get used to. Pretty unique stuff, and took the dark themes of Warhammer Fantasy to another step & in a different time/place.
Unless you just hate fantasy, or all your elves and vampires must have little sparkles around them, then they're fun settings to check out. They were successful for decades because they broke out of the cookie cutter molds. Despite the company owning the IP often souring fans with it's past merchandising strategies, paranoia-restricted digital licensing, and aggressive IP sweeps. Looks like they've finally started loosening up on the licensing options, though, which is why we're seeing the promise of an occasionally good PC game with one of their settings.
TL/DR:
Warhammer Fantasy theme is easy to get into, if you're familiar with any Tolkien derived fantasy. WH40K .. not so much.
Are there witch hunter units in this game?
Quote from: Gusington on June 11, 2016, 07:48:22 PM
Are there witch hunter units in this game?
Yes. They are one of the Hero types you can hire, as the human Empire faction.
Therefore, one of the single-man heroes that you can use as both an Agent
and as an army unit. With the RPG-like levelling, skill specs, and weapon/equipment customization.
Each faction has 4 (iirc?) Hero types they can recruit, once the proper buildings & research is unlocked. Often includes a Wizard type, Priest/Shaman, Assassin, and Warrior. Different skill trees, spells, etc for each by type and faction.
That's very cool.
Quote from: Huw the Poo on December 13, 2015, 03:57:33 AM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on December 12, 2015, 11:44:02 PM
If your plan is to pickup a game on release, then pre ordering does make sense since usually you get get a pre order discount and sometimes extras such as beta access or dlc.
This is the issue, though. Why would anyone plan to buy a game at release, before anyone knows whether it's any good or riddled with bugs? Waiting for initial reviews/patches seems to be the wise choice here, surely?
After pre-ordering Rome 2:TW, that is now my take.
I'll say Rome 2 isn't a bad game at all now, but it has been through a world of pain from release to its current status.
Quote from: Boggit on June 13, 2016, 06:48:50 PM
Quote from: Huw the Poo on December 13, 2015, 03:57:33 AM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on December 12, 2015, 11:44:02 PM
If your plan is to pickup a game on release, then pre ordering does make sense since usually you get get a pre order discount and sometimes extras such as beta access or dlc.
This is the issue, though. Why would anyone plan to buy a game at release, before anyone knows whether it's any good or riddled with bugs? Waiting for initial reviews/patches seems to be the wise choice here, surely?
After pre-ordering Rome 2:TW, that is now my take.
I'll say Rome 2 isn't a bad game at all now, but it has been through a world of pain from release to its current status.
Never had a problem with Rome 2, actually i did have a problem getting it to run first time but after that no problems...
Quote from: FlickJax on June 14, 2016, 02:00:03 AM
Quote from: Boggit on June 13, 2016, 06:48:50 PM
Quote from: Huw the Poo on December 13, 2015, 03:57:33 AM
Quote from: Grim.Reaper on December 12, 2015, 11:44:02 PM
If your plan is to pickup a game on release, then pre ordering does make sense since usually you get get a pre order discount and sometimes extras such as beta access or dlc.
This is the issue, though. Why would anyone plan to buy a game at release, before anyone knows whether it's any good or riddled with bugs? Waiting for initial reviews/patches seems to be the wise choice here, surely?
After pre-ordering Rome 2:TW, that is now my take.
I'll say Rome 2 isn't a bad game at all now, but it has been through a world of pain from release to its current status.
Never had a problem with Rome 2, actually i did have a problem getting it to run first time but after that no problems...
All I can say is you're fortunate. Did you actually get it on release though, as I did?
Like so many players I was really hyped about release and so much was promised. This interview gives you a sense of what we were looking forward to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-NltYhi58tQ so a lot of people thought they were in for a real treat.
Yet I found it was a nightmare release from day 1 to the extent that I found it totally unplayable until quite a few updates in resolved the worst of the bugs. To be fair they've put most of it right, but IIRC it took about 15 patches post release. On release, it had some excellent reviews from some quarters (yes, they know who they are C:-) :-X - and I feel they relied more on a demo, or trailers rather than actually playing the real game). I know from a journalist who was present at the SEGA press conference for the official release in Rome, Italy that even they saw only a little bit of the game (despite the fact they were in Rome for 3 days) and in my friend's opinion it was unfinished/seriously flawed at the time. There were a lot of bouncy, upbeat articles in the press shortly after that... go figure.
Entertaining though it was, the Angry Joe review captured the frustrated feeling of many TW Fanboys like myself who had been expecting a massive improvement over the original Rome Total War. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_QK-lcW8a8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdpIENG0Y2k Based on the initial release and the marketing of the game, I think both CA and SEGA misled the TW community as to what was actually being delivered, and damaged their brand image in consequence for quite a long time.
As far as I'm concerned SEGA/Creative Assembly eventually did do the right thing by the TW community by putting substantial effort into fixes for the game. A lot of people, including myself, thought it was released far too early and really needed work on it. The substantial size, number, and regularity of post release updates for Rome 2 is ample evidence for that view.
That is why I said what I did in my previous post. I'm still glad that you had no problems though. O0
Yes did get from release and yes I must have been lucky.
I have bought all Total War games on release apart from Atilla which i did hold back on for a bit.
I just must be totally lucky....most games that get released including total war I am never good enough to notice all the issues that get reported. If it wasn't for forums, I likely wouldn't even know about 99% of the issues and would still happily be enjoying my games. People always say the games had less issues in the 80s and 90s but I still think they had just as many problems but there was no social media to highlight them all, plus we were more accepting because of not as many options.
I think there were a lot of people that had great difficulty running Rome 2. Lots of crashes and bugs and such. Others, such as me, just didn't experience any crashes or performance problems. Guys like angry joe were pointing out problems with Rome2 that existed in almost all TW games such as AI tactics with troops running around everywhere. It happens and happened with Rome 1. Many more complaints were about design mechanics.
I remember post after post and angry Joe reviews complaining about the new province mechanic and the way buildings worked and such. This wasn't a bug it was the design decision that people disliked. I happen to like it and I hope people have seen it for what it is in the new releases which is a cyst them that is better than the individual city system.
Basically Rome 2 at release had bugs and a lot of them; However, it was not nearly as bad as angry Joe and many others made it out to be. there seemed to be a mix of bugs and design decisions that they simply didn't care for that caused the hate. What was funny to me was seen people talk about the original Rome as if it was the best game TW game ever. When that game came out people were screaming and yelling for years about how horrible it was. It was the red-headed step-child of the total war series until empire came out. Now all of a sudden, it's the benchmark for all total war games as if it came out in perfect condition.
I only bring it up because every time a total working comes out there or similar complaints about how the AIA eggs and things like that. By now everyone should have a pretty good grasp as to what total war offers you and what it doesn't. I only bring it up because every time a total working comes out there or similar complaints about how the AI but hates and things like that. By now everyone should have a pretty good grasp as to what total war offers you and what it doesn't. I think we have a right to expect SHOGUN 2 style AI..which is to say competent tactical and strategic moves. You aren't going to get "scored more you aren't going to get "scourge of war"
Back on point, I have played a lot of time with Warhammer and I find the AI both tactical and strategic to be on par with shogun 2. There are people particularly on steam who are complaining about the game but these are the complaints that are inherent with any total war release. At this point you know what you're getting.
Warhammer and Shogun 2 are the two, at release, that are polished and good....and Warhammer is very good.
@ Mikeck
+1. You make some excellent points.
I put up Angry Joe as an example of reaction as he is pretty explicit in highlighting what a lot of people felt about the Rome 2 release, even if he is overly dramatic. That includes some of the patently silly AI, which after Shogun2 you wouldn't have thought would be an issue, on the basis that if its not broke you don't fix it. I don't think the AJ reviews hold much credibility for the current state of the games, and the fact that you compare Warhammer favourably with Shogun 2 is a very positive statement about CA learning from their experiences. I don't have a problem with people critically discussing the design mechanics, as the PR behind the release made some pretty ambitious claims, that the initial release fell far short of. That said, I reiterate that the present version of the game is a very different animal to that which was released.
I'm looking forward to getting Warhammer TW. From what I'm hearing of it, it is a blast. O0
Rome 2 was released with obvious bugs. Not just AI issues and game design problems.
I literally saw mounted units and ships moving into & through land/hills. Clipping right through them and, if you were lucky, coming out somewhere else where you could actually click on them.
There were other issues, but you get the point. As has been said, the 17 big updates CA put out eventually turned it into a great game. That it took so many updates to fix all the bugs is enough indication the game was pushed out too early. It's probably my most played TW game since getting them on Steam, after it got fixed, so no complaints in the long run.
TW:Warhammer, on the other hand, has had a relatively bug-free release. I just hope they continue to fill it out, which is probably nothing to worry about since CA supposedly broke some of their own sales records with it. I'm sure that is due to the good condition it was in, on release.