I sat out on this one, and I started playing with this franchise when Shogun was new. The DLC is obnoxious but you don't need it. My biggest gripe about the franchise is how they keep "streamlining" the campaign game. The deep strategy that got the franchise famous is gone, it's all about arcade style RTS battles at this point, zerg or be zerged. Also they are finding that l"LORE" is a harsher mistress than historical accuracy. When they publish their NEXT cash grab, I'll buy this one and test it out.
This on a forum where people BEG for sub MMO's? You get your nuts in a twist about paying 1½ month worth of sub for ACTUAL content?
The irony is strong with this one...
You getting it wrong. Think Like this, you buy a MMO full price only know later that the dungeons and the raids are payed DLCs. This what CA has done with Warhammer to It's fullest, they made a skeleton game then release the the rest of the game piece by piece by piece that you have to pay for.
You getting it wrong. Think Like this, you buy a MMO full price only know later that the dungeons and the raids are payed DLCs. This what CA has done with Warhammer to It's fullest, they made a skeleton game then release the the rest of the game piece by piece by piece that you have to pay for.
On the other hand a quick google search on their previous games it would be evident that DLC is a thing they do.. a lot.
It's a great game, I loved most of it. Took me about 40-45 hours to win my first campaign as Dwarves. That alone got me my money's worth. But I won't pay for the Beastman expansion, it's a race I could give 2 shits about -- seriously, why them? My only complaint with the game was that the Hero units could harass and assassinate your troops/leaders too easily. And by end game there were FAR too many Hero units roaming the map. After my first game I actually used a mod to completely disable them because I was getting so annoyed by it. Other than that though, excellent game, great graphics, lots of variety. I would purchase a FULL expansion that came with a bigger map size, and maybe more than 1 race, new campaign stuff, but as far as a single race DLC....no thanks.
It's a great game, I loved most of it. Took me about 40-45 hours to win my first campaign as Dwarves. That alone got me my money's worth. But I won't pay for the Beastman expansion, it's a race I could give 2 shits about -- seriously, why them? My only complaint with the game was that the Hero units could harass and assassinate your troops/leaders too easily. And by end game there were FAR too many Hero units roaming the map. After my first game I actually used a mod to completely disable them because I was getting so annoyed by it. Other than that though, excellent game, great graphics, lots of variety. I would purchase a FULL expansion that came with a bigger map size, and maybe more than 1 race, new campaign stuff, but as far as a single race DLC....no thanks.
they nerfed heroes in the patch, but before they did so I installed a mod to remove aggressive agents as I simply don't enjoy the tedium of managing them and it doesn't make sense that they can do so much damage to armies or settlements.
Out of everything you mentioned the one that gets me the most is charging to turn on blood. That is ridiculous and really low of them. Its a simple thing they chose to disable to earn some small purchases. I was already aware and didn't purchase the game because of holding back Chaos Marines when they were on disc. Now I am not sure I will buy until I see it ridiculously cheap. So it may be a couple years or so. Who knows... by then it may be so dated I won't give a shit.
I sat out on this one, and I started playing with this franchise when Shogun was new. The DLC is obnoxious but you don't need it. My biggest gripe about the franchise is how they keep "streamlining" the campaign game. The deep strategy that got the franchise famous is gone, it's all about arcade style RTS battles at this point, zerg or be zerged. Also they are finding that l"LORE" is a harsher mistress than historical accuracy. When they publish their NEXT cash grab, I'll buy this one and test it out.
Streamlined yes but in my opinion it is trimming the fat. Rome 2 and Attila was too much micromanagement in my opinion. This one gets it just right. The tech trees offer a different experience depending on what race you choose. Like the Dwarves for example have a great tech tree. The strategy has not been removed it has been reallocated to other parts of the game. With different races having different skills and play completely different. One knock I had about some of the past games was that each race played similar. Yes there were differences but not like this one. That is where the strategy lies.
Trimming the fat can be bad. Sometimes having things that could be inefficient in general but very efficient in special situations offers some interesting choices. Also, having things for suckers to spend points on gives an advantage to the experienced knowing player. Cutting out that fat loses those potential bits.
As a very long time wargamer, is it fine to have things for suckers to buy.
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what
it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience
because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in
the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you
playing an MMORPG?"
As a long time Total War gamer I think the fat trimmed was appropriate for the type of game they made. The strategy and depth is still there just reallocated throughout the game in other ways.
I would agree that it's fitting for the Warhammer version. But, I think some of us are just afraid that it might carry over into future non-Warhammer versions.
Though, isn't Warhammer supposed to be a TW trilogy over the next couple years? So, I guess it doesn't matter as we won't see any other games for another 6 years anyway...
As a long time Total War gamer I think the fat trimmed was appropriate for the type of game they made. The strategy and depth is still there just reallocated throughout the game in other ways.
I would agree that it's fitting for the Warhammer version. But, I think some of us are just afraid that it might carry over into future non-Warhammer versions.
Though, isn't Warhammer supposed to be a TW trilogy over the next couple years? So, I guess it doesn't matter as we won't see any other games for another 6 years anyway...
Well I've owned and played every Total War except the first Shogun. I started with Medieval: Total War back in 2002. One thing about CA that I have noticed over the years is that they have constantly tweaked the empire management. In Shogun 2 they hit the balance mark pretty close then they strayed with Rome 2, then nailed almost perfectly in Attila. Now they have strayed a little bit again with Warhammer, but I think it has to do with who their core audience is with this game. By that I think their core audience(s) was for those already established Warhammer fans who have not yet tried the Total War series but who gobble up just about anything Warhammer related. For those they didn't want the empire management to be to complex because most of those guys just mainly want to see those fantasy battles come to life. Warhammer tabletop has never really been about empire building. That's just stuff that fans read about in the books mostly. So making something that requires balancing population happiness, squalor, religion, disease, and inter-faction politics just wouldn't make sense in a way. However, I also think it would make perfect sense based on the on the overall Warhammer setting. On the flip side I think the other obvious audience is for the long time Total War players who have seen different variations of empire management and have just adapted to their changes every time. We might grumble about it for every other game that is released but we always come back for more.
As far as TW:WH being a trilogy, I'm not sure that is true. At least that's the first I have heard of it. However, I'm sure CA will support the Warhammer title for at least a year or two with several faction DLCs and probably a few new campaigns before moving on to their next title in the series.
To accompany the release of the expansion, all players (whether they
own the DLC or not) will be getting a new hero and mount, new
multiplayer features and maps, an "unlockable lord" for custom or
multiplayer battles, and a new A.I.-controlled opposition race.
New mount is a big old griffon: a "beautiful jade green griffon, with
unique Amber College armour", exclusive to the game's new Empire hero,
the Amber Wizard. Ol' Amber Eyes is "renowned for their savage
appearance", and can summon a ruddy great manticore at will. So you
might want to cross to the other side of the street if you see one
coming.
Meanwhile, four new maps are coming to Total Warhammer's
multiplayer mode, during which you'll soon be able to customise your
lords and heroes. Which is nice.
All this free stuff will be yours this coming Thursday.
No doubt due to how badly their recent DLC was received on Steam and other venues. This games rating are tanking and now they're throwing free bones to bring people back around.
When the last 2700 reviews on steam are mostly "fuck your DLC prices" with 70% upvote rate on those reviews, it will make the game studio rethink their policy.
I just didn't think the game was particularly good in general. It's so dumbed down in both battle and campaign that it's difficult to enjoy. Then you get into the new "features" like race only regional occupation and it makes the game tedious. I beat my face against a VC campaign for over 100 hours before meeting the long campaign goals and it made me never want to play Total War again. Just a dull awful grind to beat down 30+ dwarf holds with an army that takes forever to replenish after ever single battle. There's your ordinary bad game design and then there's RO. Awful.
I don't get the hate honestly. The game is awesome. It is reviewed well and even user reviews are good. I think this is blown out of proportion.
MetaCritic has it at an 84 with a User of 7.4 Steam has it at over 11,000 positive and over 4,000 negative even many of the negative reviews on Steam admit the game is good but dislike the DLC policy.
Many people over the years have complained about the DLC of the Total War franchise. Remember the Sparta complaints? This is part of the Total War baggage. Which is why many people wait to buy them so they can get the all in one bundles. Which I would have done as well if I had not had a small group of friends who were buying it as well so we could play together.
One thing to keep in mind is that Warhammer is going to bring in a completely new crowd of people who have never touched a Total War game previously. Myself included. I've never had any desire whatsoever to play any other TW title prior to this one.
Couple that with the fact that their DLC methods are on par with EA schemes, and you can begin to understand the feelings. It's not that the practices are new, but the people encountering them are new. Lots of new people probably happily bought the game, enjoyed it a lot, and then the first DLC dropped and they went "What the actual fuck? $20 for a race?". So that's most likely the reason it has glowing initial reviews and pretty bad reviews recently.
Personally, I have no hate at all except for the disappointment that the full experience would cost me nearly $100 if I wanted it today. I will end up buying it later when it goes on sale, just wish I didn't feel forced to wait by ridiculous prices.
As much as I hate DLC milking in general, I do have to point out that compared to some of the other strategy franchises, Total War's is honestly tame(in comparison, that is). You guys should take a look at some of the other big strategy series: Europa, Crusader Kings, etc.
As far as TW:WH being a trilogy, I'm not sure that is true. At least that's the first I have heard of it. However, I'm sure CA will support the Warhammer title for at least a year or two with several faction DLCs and probably a few new campaigns before moving on to their next title in the series.
No doubt due to how badly their recent DLC was received on Steam and other venues. This games rating are tanking and now they're throwing free bones to bring people back around.
When the last 2700 reviews on steam are mostly "fuck your DLC prices" with 70% upvote rate on those reviews, it will make the game studio rethink their policy.
As for the DLCs, they released a sort of "FreeLC" timeline chart a few months back:
Note the date on those articles... back in April -- before the release of the game by at least a month.
There's really no excuse in this era for people who don't do the most basic research before buying a full-price game, imho. We all have access to the same information, well in advance. It's not like SEGA waited until the game was launched and then dropped some kind of bombshell on everyone once they were already "in their web".
At any rate, none of their DLC are ever mandatory or required(I have seen some games use that sketchy tactic). So, no one has to purchase them if they hate the price. There's still plenty of free content being given to the folks who don't want to chomp the sucker bait. So, I find it hard to sympathize with all the whining, down-voting outcryers.
I have no problem just waiting until it's all in one bundled reasonable price. But, I am sure most of their money will come from the people who don't mind shelling out fives and twenties for the DLCs along the way. I'm content with it. It's the way most games are nowadays. Either wait for the all-in-one once everything is released, or shell out extra cash. Does the DLC system suck? Absolutely. Still, waiting a few months to get it all at a normal price wouldn't hurt anyone. People either learn to accept the system or learn a little patience.
As a long time Total War gamer I think the fat trimmed was appropriate for the type of game they made. The strategy and depth is still there just reallocated throughout the game in other ways.
I would agree that it's fitting for the Warhammer version. But, I think some of us are just afraid that it might carry over into future non-Warhammer versions.
Though, isn't Warhammer supposed to be a TW trilogy over the next couple years? So, I guess it doesn't matter as we won't see any other games for another 6 years anyway...
they have two teams - one for WH and one for historical
As a long time Total War gamer I think the fat trimmed was appropriate for the type of game they made. The strategy and depth is still there just reallocated throughout the game in other ways.
I would agree that it's fitting for the Warhammer version. But, I think some of us are just afraid that it might carry over into future non-Warhammer versions.
Though, isn't Warhammer supposed to be a TW trilogy over the next couple years? So, I guess it doesn't matter as we won't see any other games for another 6 years anyway...
Well I've owned and played every Total War except the first Shogun. I started with Medieval: Total War back in 2002. One thing about CA that I have noticed over the years is that they have constantly tweaked the empire management. In Shogun 2 they hit the balance mark pretty close then they strayed with Rome 2, then nailed almost perfectly in Attila. Now they have strayed a little bit again with Warhammer, but I think it has to do with who their core audience is with this game. By that I think their core audience(s) was for those already established Warhammer fans who have not yet tried the Total War series but who gobble up just about anything Warhammer related. For those they didn't want the empire management to be to complex because most of those guys just mainly want to see those fantasy battles come to life. Warhammer tabletop has never really been about empire building. That's just stuff that fans read about in the books mostly. So making something that requires balancing population happiness, squalor, religion, disease, and inter-faction politics just wouldn't make sense in a way. However, I also think it would make perfect sense based on the on the overall Warhammer setting. On the flip side I think the other obvious audience is for the long time Total War players who have seen different variations of empire management and have just adapted to their changes every time. We might grumble about it for every other game that is released but we always come back for more.
As far as TW:WH being a trilogy, I'm not sure that is true. At least that's the first I have heard of it. However, I'm sure CA will support the Warhammer title for at least a year or two with several faction DLCs and probably a few new campaigns before moving on to their next title in the series.
I'm neithern. I knew nothing of the WH lore. all I knew is it was a tabletop game that Blizzard ripped off for WC and SC and that their much hyped MMO was DOA. It was one of the first supposed WOW killers (I don't remember if it came out before or after AoC)
I am a fantasy fan and am not interested in historical RTS games, which is why I loved WC and the Middle Earth RTS games but couldn't enjoy Age of empires or even starcraft.
Anyway, I've bought a bunch of the older total war games on the steam sale and didn't care for a lot of Rome 1's design after having started with WH. I'm definitely happier with the settlement management in TW:WH.
What I thought you were going to say was that CA is targeting more casual minded players with their latest entries, or at least those that don't want to be bogged down with the minutia of settlement management like sewers and roads and such. Which is probably a good idea.
Comments
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
You getting it wrong.
Think Like this, you buy a MMO full price only know later that the dungeons and the raids are payed DLCs.
This what CA has done with Warhammer to It's fullest, they made a skeleton game then release the the rest of the game piece by piece by piece that you have to pay for.
On the other hand a quick google search on their previous games it would be evident that DLC is a thing they do.. a lot.
This have been a good conversation
Trimming the fat can be bad. Sometimes having things that could be inefficient in general but very efficient in special situations offers some interesting choices. Also, having things for suckers to spend points on gives an advantage to the experienced knowing player. Cutting out that fat loses those potential bits.
As a very long time wargamer, is it fine to have things for suckers to buy.
Epic Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vAigCvelkhQ&list=PLo9FRw1AkDuQLEz7Gvvaz3ideB2NpFtT1
https://archive.org/details/softwarelibrary_msdos?&sort=-downloads&page=1
Kyleran: "Now there's the real trick, learning to accept and enjoy a game for what it offers rather than pass on what might be a great playing experience because it lacks a few features you prefer."
John Henry Newman: "A man would do nothing if he waited until he could do it so well that no one could find fault."
FreddyNoNose: "A good game needs no defense; a bad game has no defense." "Easily digested content is just as easily forgotten."
LacedOpium: "So the question that begs to be asked is, if you are not interested in the game mechanics that define the MMORPG genre, then why are you playing an MMORPG?"
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Though, isn't Warhammer supposed to be a TW trilogy over the next couple years? So, I guess it doesn't matter as we won't see any other games for another 6 years anyway...
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
As far as TW:WH being a trilogy, I'm not sure that is true. At least that's the first I have heard of it. However, I'm sure CA will support the Warhammer title for at least a year or two with several faction DLCs and probably a few new campaigns before moving on to their next title in the series.
"If I offended you, you needed it" -Corey Taylor
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
When the last 2700 reviews on steam are mostly "fuck your DLC prices" with 70% upvote rate on those reviews, it will make the game studio rethink their policy.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
Couple that with the fact that their DLC methods are on par with EA schemes, and you can begin to understand the feelings. It's not that the practices are new, but the people encountering them are new. Lots of new people probably happily bought the game, enjoyed it a lot, and then the first DLC dropped and they went "What the actual fuck? $20 for a race?". So that's most likely the reason it has glowing initial reviews and pretty bad reviews recently.
Personally, I have no hate at all except for the disappointment that the full experience would cost me nearly $100 if I wanted it today. I will end up buying it later when it goes on sale, just wish I didn't feel forced to wait by ridiculous prices.
거북이는 목을 내밀 때 안 움직입니다
You guys should take a look at some of the other big strategy series: Europa, Crusader Kings, etc.
Few links about it:
(this one has a comment by a CA member saying they'll also be working on the regular games as well, at least)
https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/33hamo/total_war_warhammer_confirmed_to_be_a_trilogy/
http://www.gamesradar.com/total-war-warhammer-just-start-new-strategy-trilogy/
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-04-22-total-war-warhammer-the-first-title-in-a-trilogy
As for the DLCs, they released a sort of "FreeLC" timeline chart a few months back:
https://www.vg247.com/2016/04/12/total-war-warhammer-free-dlc-pc/
Along with their DLC plans in general:
http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-04-12-total-war-warhammer-future-dlc-plans-include-free-new-race
Note the date on those articles... back in April -- before the release of the game by at least a month.
There's really no excuse in this era for people who don't do the most basic research before buying a full-price game, imho. We all have access to the same information, well in advance.
It's not like SEGA waited until the game was launched and then dropped some kind of bombshell on everyone once they were already "in their web".
At any rate, none of their DLC are ever mandatory or required(I have seen some games use that sketchy tactic). So, no one has to purchase them if they hate the price. There's still plenty of free content being given to the folks who don't want to chomp the sucker bait. So, I find it hard to sympathize with all the whining, down-voting outcryers.
I have no problem just waiting until it's all in one bundled reasonable price. But, I am sure most of their money will come from the people who don't mind shelling out fives and twenties for the DLCs along the way. I'm content with it. It's the way most games are nowadays. Either wait for the all-in-one once everything is released, or shell out extra cash. Does the DLC system suck? Absolutely. Still, waiting a few months to get it all at a normal price wouldn't hurt anyone. People either learn to accept the system or learn a little patience.
I am a fantasy fan and am not interested in historical RTS games, which is why I loved WC and the Middle Earth RTS games but couldn't enjoy Age of empires or even starcraft.
Anyway, I've bought a bunch of the older total war games on the steam sale and didn't care for a lot of Rome 1's design after having started with WH. I'm definitely happier with the settlement management in TW:WH.
What I thought you were going to say was that CA is targeting more casual minded players with their latest entries, or at least those that don't want to be bogged down with the minutia of settlement management like sewers and roads and such. Which is probably a good idea.
sEAga!