|
Dramicus posted:Man, I gave ToB a good chance, but I think I'll be getting a refund. Apart from the other criticism already levied, I just can't seem to get excited about hairy guys with ponytails and mustaches wearing potato sacks poking spears at other hairy peasants who may or may not have mail. I guess I've been spoiled by Warhammer, but I want to see shiny plate armor and other interesting poo poo like that. Same, I am actually kind of liking it but I can tell I am am going to drop it in under a week, not worth my $40 canuckbucks
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 22:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
weird that the game set in early middle ages britain doesn’t have dragons or knights in plate armour
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 23:19
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:weird that the game set in early middle ages britain doesn’t have dragons or knights in plate armour Almost like they should have set it during the late middle ages.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
Nah they wanted Vikings poo poo. Yall just aren’t the target audience
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 23:33
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Yall just aren’t the target audience Considering I've literally bought every single Total War title and DLC since Shogun 1, it's an interesting marketing decision.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 23:36
|
|
|
how DARE they make a game in a setting i don’t personally approve of
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 23:42
|
|
|
Dramicus posted:Considering I've literally bought every single Total War title and DLC since Shogun 1, it's an interesting marketing decision. They haven’t made a game tailored to their core audience since atilla. Three games since then so this shouldn’t be a shock to you.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
Shogun 2 and Napoleon are far better games than this, while also being based on fairly limited time periods. Game is boring.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 23:43
|
|
|
Napoleon and shogun are also kind of boring. Especially Napoleon.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 23:45
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:They haven’t made a game tailored to their core audience since atilla. I've been loving the hell out of Warhammer 1 & 2. I just don't like using naked peasants.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
I like the smaller armies with guys who seem to have defined roles. Can't say I am a big fan of some aspects of it, but it is still good fun.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 23:47
|
|
|
Dramicus posted:I've been loving the hell out of Warhammer 1 & 2. I just don't like using naked peasants. I’m not talking about quality just they haven’t been shy about going away from their core audience. Not every game has to appeal to you.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 23:50
|
|
|
At this point their core audience is Warhammer. But for real, if CA wanted their historical fans back, they should have made ME3 and not a game that barely passes as an addon to an already poorly received game.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:I’m not talking about quality just they haven’t been shy about going away from their core audience I just wish 75% of the unit roster didn't consist of unwashed farmers wielding various kitchen implements. At least in Medieval 2 you started with that kind of stuff and quickly upgraded to more professional armies. In ToB you go from "some guys have mail", to "more guys have mail".
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 23:53
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:At this point their core audience is Warhammer. I don’t disagree but there is no way you get M3 and the three kingdoms game.
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 23:55
|
|
|
This isn't the full fledged historical title, that's coming this autumn. I won't actually get to play it for a couple of weeks so I have no idea what the quality of the game itself is, but whining about the setting is pretty dumb when it's been entirely clear what it would be since the thing was first announced
|
|
#
?
May 5, 2018 23:57
|
|
|
Koramei posted:but whining about the setting is pretty dumb when it's been entirely clear what it would be since the thing was first announced This is where the "historical" part should take a backseat to making the game interesting. In Shogun they included stuff katana samurai or warrior monks, even though historically they mostly used spears, because spears are boring and dudes running around with katanas is rad as hell. This game would have been much more interesting if they had taken a hollywood approach to the appearance of the factions.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 00:03
|
|
|
Don't disagree with you at all there. A big and very vocal chunk of their historical fanbase absolutely hates that stuff and it's a shame they actually listen to them these days.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
Koramei posted:This isn't the full fledged historical title, that's coming this autumn. The setting is fine, it's just that CA did nothing interesting with it. All the factions feel the same, look the same, act the same, play the same.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 00:07
|
|
|
Electronico6 posted:The setting is fine, it's just that CA did nothing interesting with it. All the factions feel the same, look the same, act the same, play the same. Because I’m gonna guess there was not much difference between them. Turns out if you stretching a map to regions the armies look similar. You know like a Shogun and Napoleon did.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
Im mostly pissed that they're still pulling this blood dlc horseshit
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 00:12
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Because I’m gonna guess there was not much difference between them. Nah, despite everything playing Otomo was very different from playing Oda, and in FotS the nature of modern and traditional armies always made the campaign interesting.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 00:15
|
|
|
Otomo is one of 3 exceptions and was released like 2 years after launch, and FotS' entire thing was modernization. I love Shogun 2 but variety between factions is definitely not its strength.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 00:24
|
|
|
CharlestheHammer posted:Because I’m gonna guess there was not much difference between them. At least in Napoleon they made the decision to go for the iconic Napoleonic uniforms even though the game was technically set several years too early for them, just to make the game look cool. In shogun, there isn't a naked peasant in sight, even the basic ashigaru are wearing uniforms and are stylized to look cool.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 00:25
|
|
|
agreed this isnt one of the big historical titles, its just a spinoff its a setting thats pretty interesting to me though and should be more varied than shogun, since it contains 3-4 pretty different cultures im literally a brit visiting my viking archeologist grandparents in castletown (aka Dyflin's second capital castletoun) atm though so im like primed to like this game and its pretty meh. i hope some modders can make something of it but it being a loving 32bit engine capped to 3.5gig vram is genuinely so disappointing because it means you cant really have these big fancy mods adding lots of unit variety etc i sound more doomsday than I am though since I'm now kinda looking forward to getting back to my gaming pc in a whiiiiile and trying it out on legendary etc to see if theres any goodness to be squeezed from the game
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 00:35
|
|
|
I mean it does the job at the end of the day and if you bought the game expecting early Medieval Vikings.
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 01:32
|
|
|
Yeah, it's pretty much more for people who were into the TV show Vikings or more precisely The Last Kingdom and on that count, they've nailed it. Loving the game, love the lack of agents most of all.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 01:37
|
|
|
I imagine all Flash Point games will be the same, detailed in the setting and history with the same old same old stuff underneath. Closest thing to high quality TC mods we'll ever get sadly. I'd just grab them discounted because the release prices are a bit much.
|
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 01:39
|
|
|
My hot take is that this is the best Total War game since Shogun 2 and it's not even remotely close. Really hope it's a sign that Three Kingdoms will be well and truly free of Rome 2 & Attila's terrible design decisions.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 02:41
|
|
|
That is a hot take. Specifically since this game has a lot of the issues those games had
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 02:42
|
|
|
Having not played it, my perspective is obviously limited, but I played every single other historical game to a frightening degree. The era is pretty whatever, the units will obviously be boring as hell, the mechanics aren't particularly progressive (the exclusion of march stance seems a welcome change, as does the new agent system) and as far as I'm aware from the outside looking in it seems like the engine/gameplay isn't particularly smooth and optimized. Other than blind loyalty to TW games or a historical fixation on the era, is there really any reason to play ToB over Warhammer? Or Shogun/Attila?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 04:06
|
|
|
jokes posted:Other than blind loyalty to TW games or a historical fixation on the era, is there really any reason to play ToB over Warhammer? Or Shogun/Attila? I suppose if you want a game where the factions are more balanced. Each faction can more or less do what the others can with some subtle variation. It's a little more like Shogun 2 in that respect, so you don't have radically different play-styles or tactics. It also has a lot more in terms of events and faction management than many of the recent games. Kinda like a mix between Attila's political system and random events from Warhammer 2.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
I put hundreds of hours into every TW game, but after Warhammer I dunno if I can ever go back to historical. Unit and faction variety is so much more important that pseudo-accurate historical authenticity. Certainly doesn't help that ToB seems particularly dull. Didn't Charlemagne have vikings anyways? Did we need more?
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 04:39
|
|
|
Vargs posted:Didn't Charlemagne have vikings anyways? It did. As did base Attilla. And frankly, in ToB they are pretty much the same as they were in the previous games.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 04:44
|
|
|
Dramicus posted:I suppose if you want a game where the factions are more balanced. Each faction can more or less do what the others can with some subtle variation. It's a little more like Shogun 2 in that respect, so you don't have radically different play-styles or tactics. It also has a lot more in terms of events and faction management than many of the recent games. Kinda like a mix between Attila's political system and random events from Warhammer 2. i havent played ToB yet but one thing that bugs me about non-S2 total wars is that it's often kinda hard to intuit variations between units. s2 each unit can be explained in a clearly defined role in one sentence, and the faction variation is campaign bonus (usually) + one type of unit that's Just Better + a unique unit with its own unique niche as DLC. whereas in attilla it's a pain to remember if the picts are supposed to have better axemen than the goths and each unit's role is a little more muddled. i think warhammer did a lightly better job just because it's more over the top in its unit roles
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 04:46
|
|
|
StashAugustine posted:s2 each unit can be explained in a clearly defined role in one sentence, and the faction variation is campaign bonus (usually) + one type of unit that's Just Better + a unique unit with its own unique niche as DLC. They actually do this in ToB. Each unit has a little designation under the name to let you know more or less it's role. For example, you have Seax warriors (Levy swords) and Theigns (Retinue Swords) or Royal Theigns (Elite Swords). So it's pretty easy to know what a unit does at a glance even if it's a different faction.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 04:53
|
|
|
jokes posted:the mechanics aren't particularly progressive (the exclusion of march stance seems a welcome change, as does the new agent system) I disagree with this, at least based on what I saw from prerelease, they made some pretty sweeping changes to the campaign side of things. Maybe ill thought out changes, but saying they haven't moved on from Attila or whatever is unfair.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
jokes posted:as far as I'm aware from the outside looking in it seems like the engine/gameplay isn't particularly smooth and optimized. The game is extremely well optimized and is likely the best performing TW installment to date. Despite my best attempts I cannot get the game to actually load enough different assets to hit either of the memory limits. I was able to get it to use more than 4gb of ram between the GPU and CPU To my understanding means that, on ultra, with 9000 units on the field across six factions fielding one full stack each on a siege map, the game still has roughly 2GB of VRAM and 2.5 GB of system ram to spare. turn off the TV fucked around with this message at 06:15 on May 6, 2018 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 05:34
|
|
|
Koramei posted:I disagree with this, at least based on what I saw from prerelease, they made some pretty sweeping changes to the campaign side of things. They've definitely tried to push things forward and make changes, but unfortunately the best of what they learned while doing Warhammer 1+2 isn't applicable to a title like this. My biggest complaint is that the units, and by extension the battles, are boring. The campaign seems pretty alright but if I'm going to auto-resolve, I'd rather be playing crusader kings.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 05:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 17:28 |
|
|
turn off the TV posted:The game is extremely well optimized and is likely the best performing TW installment to date. Despite my best attempts I cannot get the game to actually load enough different assets to hit either of the memory limits. For my money it doesn't run as well as launch Warhammer 1 (though warhammer got slower as they added in more factions etc). Loading is slower and FPS is lower Still runs well enough though
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2018 14:17
|
|