Total War: Shogun 2 and the lessons 2k should learn from The Creative Assembly

[Fabiano1979]

For the first time Im happy for having steam, because it made possible to me to download the Total War: Shogun 2 demo.

What a great game!

Lets see what "revolutionary" things The Creative Assembly have done with this new edition of the total war series:

Hmm, they keep all the good stuff from the past titles and improved then.

Wow, thats is truly revolutionary..I can see why 2k couldnt think in doing the same with civ V.

You know, Shogun 2 will probably sell a lot more than civ V and it is a much complex game. That will prove that you dont need to "dumb down" a game to sell it.

Im really sad with the direction choose by the civ developers and I hope they can learn from the others strategy games on the market.

Everybody here should download this demo and see what strategy games can already achieve. Im really impressed with shogun 2 and the deep concepts in it. I would love to see some of then on my next civ game or expasion.


Sry the broken english.

 

[Alexastor]

Hmm, they keep all the good stuff from the past titles and improved then.

Like the crappy AI and missing patch support?

And Empire: Total War, the worst game in the series?

 

[Fabiano1979]

Like the crappy AI and missing patch support?

And Empire: Total War, the worst game in the series?

Yes it is, in my opinion.

But just because of the bugs, the game has improved a lot since the release.

And Empire, different of civ V, was never a lost cause, because all the good stuff was there, just need it to be polished.

Civ V will need a huge expansion to be compared to civ IV. And I dont think they will do it.

 

[Alexastor]

I think CiV is fine as it is, and it's better than CIV or Civ3. It just needs to be polished.

 

[Rulle_Kebab]

I think CiV is fine as it is, and it's better than CIV or Civ3. It just needs to be polished.

ciV is as polished as it gets. They actually polished it so much they've rubbed off the paint and left us with the base!

 

[CurseUppl]

CA promised multiplayer grand campaign and some other things with the release of Empire, which weren't implemented and weren't implemented six months after the release.

N:TW was a disappointment, too; the only good thing about it was the awesome fleet combat. Hopefully S2:TW will live up to some of the grandeur that was M2:TW and R:TW.

Firaxis has a long way to go before they hit the abyssal plain that is CA.

 

[LegionSteve]

I own all the TW games up to and including M2TW. MTW is one of my all time favourites. I was disappointed with M2TW and said many of the same things that people have said about Civ 5. Apart from the huge amount of bugs, many of which they never bothered to fix, the AI was pathetic and couldn't provide a challenge nor even an interesting gaming experience. So I haven't looked at any TW game since. If Shogun 2 gets a great response from the community and the AI is proven to be much better then I may look at it.

 

[Fabiano1979]

Im a huge fan of TW, as Im of Civ.

Played everygame so far on both series.

My problem with Civ is that they are clearly choosing the path of the "lets make it easy to attract more players".

Thats not the problem with the TW series. There, the problem is that the games became so complex that is hard to make a good AI and avoid bugs.

I do think that the TW aprouch is better. Because with patches and expansions the games can achieve their potential.

Civ V is just not made for the hardcore players, not even for the medium strategy players. Civ V is for consoles and those who never played a civ game before. Theres no empire building, no micro management...

But im glad that plp are not agreeing with me, maybe Im wrong about civ and theres hope for the game.

 

[Gort]

You should post this over on TWCenter, I'm sure they'll get a kick out of how highly you think of the company making the games they complain constantly about.

PS: All video game fans are whiny babies.

 

[ArataWata11]

just played the demo. its a good game. quite similar to M2 the only differents are the 3d strategic map, tech and general promotion and many features in empire and nap were added. i'll buy it for sure, quite addition to my TW series games.

 

[Babri]

just played the demo. its a good game. quite similar to M2 the only differents are the 3d strategic map, tech and general promotion and many features in empire and nap were added. i'll buy it for sure, quite addition to my TW series games.

Sounds great. I did not played ETW & NTW much. I prefer Medieval based games. Hopefully this game will have enough replayabilitiy to keep me busy for a long time.

 

[jacyp]

N:TW was a disappointment, too; the only good thing about it was the awesome fleet combat. Hopefully S2:TW will live up to some of the grandeur that was M2:TW and R:TW.

You are the only person I've ever saw saying that "N:TW was a disappointment".

Sorry, but no.

Empire: Total War was a failure? Ok, but let's take a look at the game: it brought tons of new stuff that came to improve the game and add strategic depth, and it succeeded in doing both things; but the new era of the game brought difficulties in terms of combat AI dealing with much more complex strategies with the new units involved than in previous game where you had only "melee on front, missiles behind, horses on flank". Now missiles AND melee were the same. Horses couldn't cross in front of them cos they would be shot like sitting ducks. Artillary was added.

The only failure in Empire was that they should have done something like Napoleon first: test the new features in something smaller, humbler.

When Napoleon came out, it was clear that CA learned from their past mistakes and that they have improved their skills in that type of game since Empire. It is an awesome game with an easy to fine tune AI - and it has been fine tuned by the community since release.

So it looks to me that you're simply a fan of ancient and medieval ways of combat, like many that didn't like Empire or Napoleon, and that's fine.

I think since CA has more experience in this kind of combat, Shogun 2's AI has everything to be the best of the series.

 

[Drawmeus]

I tend to buy TW games, but there are a bunch of flaws with that series that makes the replay value quite low (I've already played much more Civ V than every TW game combined) to me. Poor AI pretty much leaves the tactical level map just an easy way to let the player automatically win unless confronted with odds so massively lopsided that you might as well just let it autoresolve, which leaves the main conceit of the whole series (the tactical/strategic map split) pretty, well, empty. Invading and conquering France in NTW as Prussia was one of the emptiest gaming experiences I have ever had; empty because it was so long, so drawn out, yet so utterly easy. The fact that there was effectively no way to form a real coalition against Napoleon just made it worse; allying with Austria or England didn't mean I would have any way of coordinating an attack with them, which is the rough equivalent of that company that released Diplomacy as a computer game with no means of talking to the other players.

Civ V has some of these same problems with tactical AI, but less emphasis on the tactics (less benefit to good tactics, less downside for bad tactics) makes it less of a problem in Civ V, and the strategic level of Civ V is deeper and more engaging (though less complex) than the strategic level of the TW games. (Likewise, this is why the near complete lack of combat AI in Civ IV doesn't kill that game; Civ IV simply isn't about combat).

I always feel like I need to buy them, but I rarely clear the 20 hours played level of them before getting bored.

 

[jojorah]

No offence but total wars ai is crap,and thats with out the one unit per tile thing. Correct me if im wrong but idont think theres multiplayer. Also i thinks theres been more versions of total war than civ so they should have more time to polish up the game. Not to forget the replay value in civ theres not so much in total war. And btw i would hardly consider it "revolutionary" to pretty much make the same game over and over again with slightly different feature. I like civ and to be honest i wouldnt have liked civ 5 if it was just like civ 4 with squares mabey better diplomacy better religions ect. But they started with new ideas some of them will stay in the civ series forever others may leave. I just hope they dont go back to the "tradition" policie branch. Any way civ is about leading a civ from the begening of man to the space age, and total war about leading your ppl for like 5 years. Main thing is is that there different games and should be treated like different games aswell

 

[sharkles]

I don't really understand the "dumb down our games" argument.
People say that every time a new game in a series comes out and if it were true, we'd all be playing Peggle or Tetris by now. Just put that argument to rest already. It's not substantiated.

 

[Fabiano1979]

When I said "revolutionary" I was being ironic of course...

I disagree with most plp here, for me civ V is a lot more tedious and annoing than any TW.

Just dont make sense. One civ invades you, you kill 7-8 units and then you make a peace pact where they give you 3 cities and all their gold and resources.

I cant play this game without some MODs, its that bad.

Btw, the only hope I have to civ v is that they open the codes for the modders, then thalacius, alpaca and the others can do their magic.

 

[Bibor]

I tried hard to "get into" Total War: Rome for a few weeks as a few of my friends were praising the game going on and on how awesome it was. I played it a few years after release so I guess whatever needed patching was patched. Truth is - it was boring. No, let me rephrase, it was repetative and boring with no replay value whatsoever.
Maybe Napoleon was different, I honestly cannot say. Because the basic concept is good.

I have yet to see a game that beats HoMM III in AI, balance, gameplay and replay value. Maybe HoMM V with this new fan-programmed AI that got released recently.

 

[Gort]

No offence but total wars ai is crap,and thats with out the one unit per tile thing. Correct me if im wrong but idont think theres multiplayer.

I'm correcting you because you're wrong. There's multiplayer.

In fact, this game they're doing a big push on multiplayer - co-op and versus campaigns, being able to play co-operatively on the same side in a battle (IE: One guy takes cavalry another takes the infantry), and even persistent online generals that level up and stuff.

I'll be interested to see how it goes.

 

[Bandobras Took]

I have yet to see a game that beats HoMM III in AI, balance, gameplay and replay value. Maybe HoMM V with this new fan-programmed AI that got released recently.

Hear, hear! Of course, 3do then killed NWC with Heroes IV, so . . .

 

[Dermo]

So true, love HoMM III and still play it
Heroes V was good but the 3D strategic map took a little getting used to
Looking forward to 6