Page 1 of 5 12345 Last

Thread: my "opinion" on this game...

my "opinion" on this game...

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    29

    my "opinion" on this game...

    Hi, my first post here and i'd just link to say something.

    This game will be nothing other than a great game for te casual gamer that has none to minimal knowledge or concern for strategy.

    Yes it will looks and sound great but I just know that underneath the good looks, there will be no real meat, depth or strategical gameplay to it.

    How do I know this?

    Well the only 2 games in gaming history to contain a real depth and strategy is Shogun TW and Medieval TW.

    Unfortunatly the bastards at Activition or Creative Assembly decided they waned more money so they made their next TW game (R TW) alot more appelaing to the mass-market by dumbing down the strategy and removing any real depth to it. Creative Assembly where once good

    Its really sad and will be the case for this game too.

    Dumbed down minimal depch and strategy = more appealing to more people = more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    Highly detailed and depthfull strategical gameplay = appelaing to only the strategy and realism lovers = less $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

    Anyone, I long for another large-scale strategy game that will provide 2 solid years of enjoyment like S TW and M TW did.

    Imperial Glory will NOT be it and i doubt the gaming industry will bring us anything to match S TW and M TW

    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    29
    oh for * sake.

    I've just watched the trailer again and noticed that lines will open fire even though there freindlys infront of them.

    This just further reinforces my "opinion" (fact) about this game.

    Nothing more tha a click to move enemy there, click to attack enemy here, wait and see who wins

    When the bloody hell will the gaming industry bring us something that matches or exceeds STW and MTW?

    Ohh wait, there will never be becuase those two games made next to nothing

    Money driven gaming industry and so many development companys will stay well cleer of realism to make their game appeal to the mindless masses.

    Its a very sad state and will only get worse.

    Creative Assembly, the makers of the Total War series turned bad with their latest releases, Rome: Total War. They *ed the TW fans over for the sake of $$$$$$$$$$$$$.

    [No Swearing] money money money, thats all they want, [Read our rules]

    I'm sure those of you that long for something to match STW and MTW can understand my frustration and anger...

  3. #3
    Like you I can get pretty angry sometimes about the fact that many developers try to make as much money as possible, instead of creating a quality game. So I understand your anger, but I think without any doubt Pyro Studios would do this. I played all of their games with many pleasure and I think it was worth the money. I'm sure Imperial Glory will be a good game as well which I will play many hours without getting bored. Not everything is known about the game, Pyro Studios will probably have some surprises for is. Untill the game is out I can't give my final opinion, neither can you.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    29
    hey dude, u only have to look at the trailers to know this game is not going to achieve the level of strategy most startegy lovers desire...

    See how men fire even though there's friendly forces infront of them?

    Totall bloody rediculous and is just proof that the guys making this game are staying WELL clear of proper combat strategy.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    4,047
    Hold your horses man,

    Firstly you should direct your ode to CA on their forum I'm sure they'll be delighted to read it.

    Furthermore but your cristal boll (or whatever it is you use to look in the future) away and wait untill a demo comes out or untill you actually played the game before making such assumptions.

    The trailers are of early development and do not represent how the game is at the moment. For all we know some things that were seen in the trailer may have been totaly changed, remember balancing is usually done in the final months of development.

    It really amazes me that you already know that this game will not be "it". I don't think you have any experience with playing other games of Pyro Studios but I can assure you that there are not CA, they usually do things on their own way. When they released their games they practicly brought a new strategy genre on the market so I would not doubt them. They are the company behind the brilliant Commandos and the higly underrated Praetorians (if you prefer combat you really should check this game out).

    Oh and finally reread the rules as was suggested, and you might want to refrain from calling developers that you've never even seen names.

    The rules

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    29
    "Praetorians a good war game".

    Is that a typo? I hope it is.

    I have had plety of experiance with Pyro games. The Commando series is excellent but that means nothing...

    I have no crystal ball, just 9 years of hardcore PC gaming experiance to go by

    Trust me, this game will not reach a decent strategical level atall.

    The only "large-scale" strategy game that seems to have developers or its publishers not so fixiated on $$$$ is Strategical Command: War over Europe. i think thats the name of it and its being published by Codemasters.

    It looks set to achieve the realism and depth that STW and MTW brought us but I could be wrong but judging by the screens, info and trailers, I dont think I am.

  7. #7
    Surely you didnt use the words "depth" and "realism" in the same sentence as MTW?
    The idea was good behind the game, but oh dear, the actual game... where do we start, useless wars, endless destruction, no-brain aggression, endless trade wealth.. building that grabs all time and reason. Please!


    By the looks, with actual diplomacy and some depth into the specifics of each nation, IG should be the winner, between theese two. Atleast if it works out.

    A features that would be nice to have, and likely neccesary as provinces are large: Building multiple units at a time.
    Buildings too..allows rebuilding(?) and upgrading of newly taken ones without spending half the game building basics in the newly conquered and having zillions in cash at the same time.

    PS, maybe you should be using multiple "€":s instead? Not that more than one is neccesary, but I dont believe "$" is the relevant currency

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    4,047

    Wink

    Originally posted by d3v
    [B]"Praetorians a good war game".

    Is that a typo? I hope it is.
    In order for it to be a typo I would have to actually typed it.

    But regardless, I prefer untill I actually played the game before commenting on the gameplay.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    29
    I do agree TW games SP comapign is rather e and shallow but its the actual gameplay that comes first and foremost and the ammount of deptch to it was incredible.

    There were literally dozens of small variables and stuff that could determine theoutcome on any engagment.

    Pojecticle stat file contained INSANE ammounts of detail that effect missile flight.

    I highly doubt any game will come close to STW and MTW's battle deatail nd relaism.

    Most games are like.

    If A unit is stronger than B unit. A unit will win.

    Absolute totaly piece of basic undepthful disgracfull taking e and I have no doubt this game will be any differant.

  10. #10

    Thumbs Down

    What part of "no swearing" don't you understand?

  11. #11
    Really d3v, if you actually want to get a point across, try to post something without swearing - it works wonders!


    Anyway, you will have to wait until a demo emerges to get the whole picture of what IG will be like. I have some minor things against this game, but I want to be able to play it before I give it a yay or a nay.


    As for the TW games, they are good fun to play, but are certainly not the most realistic games.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    4,047

    Exclamation

    Originally posted by d3v
    I do agree TW games SP comapign is rather e and shallow but its the actual gameplay that comes first and foremost and the ammount of deptch to it was incredible.

    There were literally dozens of small variables and stuff that could determine theoutcome on any engagment.

    Pojecticle stat file contained INSANE ammounts of detail that effect missile flight.

    I highly doubt any game will come close to STW and MTW's battle deatail nd relaism.

    Most games are like.

    If A unit is stronger than B unit. A unit will win.

    Absolute totaly piece of basic undepthful disgracfull taking e and I have no doubt this game will be any differant.
    You've been asked repeatedly to refrain from swearing in your posts and re-read the forum rules. Seeing as you continue to use swearing instead of arguments I'm assuming you haven't read them. I highly recommand you do so and therefore I've putted them below:

    No Cursing or Swearwords. We encourage you to use our Communities as a forum to debate topics, but please use proper adjectives to express yourself. This includes the creative use of different characters to circumvent our censor.

    No abusive language. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this Forum to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. Hate speech is not tolerated. We will not tolerate abuse upon another member!

    No "Slam" postings. We have zero tolerance for "slam" postings to our boards. By slam postings, we mean posts that make statements such as, "This product is horrible. No one should buy it." Those postings will be removed from our site, as will any posting that refers to your fellow board users, our moderators, our developers, Eidos Interactive or even our competitors in a derogatory manner.
    While you are not calling for a boycot of this game by posting that noone should buy it, you do keep going on about how bad it will be:

    Absolute totaly piece of ***** basic undepthful disgracfull piss taking e and I have no doubt this game will be any differant.
    You keep saying things like this hower you refrain from backing it up, I haven't read why it would be and it surprises me that you already know how the game will be. And while you might have 9 years hardcore gaming experience that doesn't mean you can predict gameplay without playing a game.

    So yeah, basicly to me your posts look like your we're frustated/dissapointed with RTW and are posting here because for some reason you are so convinced that this game will just be like it beside the fact that is made by another developer, published by another company and many other factors. But most importantly despite the fact that you have actually played the game or read a thorough write up over the strategy.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    29
    Its obvious i'm right.

    Unrealistic gameplay gets bigger audiences, thus more money.

    Realsitic gameplay attracts only hardcore and strategy lovers, thus less money.

    "MTW not very realistic"

    Thats rediculous. STW and MTW are the most realistic large scale RTW games ever created and will proably remain this way considering the ammount of money the 2 games made

  14. #14
    If you want this awesome realism, and think mtw was great, well, why not try EU2?

    IGN Review

    That game sure has no bigger flaws then a horrible loans system and that the game may sometimes take a fairly great turn from history... oh and austria usually dominates europe, france a good second, unless you are russia and do take colonisation and reform seriously, in which case youa re a real terror to behold
    Neither are the scenarios all that well thought out.. but the Grand campaign (1419-1820) sure compensates.

    Features:
    *Worldwide, province based
    *Any single of the 200? nations are playable, from muscovy to songhai to huron. Sure huron will never develop the power of sweden, but thats life
    *Realtime, pausable (!)
    *Exploration & colonisation
    *Events, steering both to historical oitcomes and to less ghistorical ones. Almost all events have choises except where you would be dumb to take that "no", such in does spain want aztecs conquered?
    *Civilisation attributes, but steerable over a long time.. turning austria into a naval power?? Keeping England a continental power.. in favour of naval focus.. etc
    *A very complex economical system, that fortunately the player doesent have to understand. It works anyway.

    *and lots of more, too numerous to mention..
    The most important thing being here, world conquest isnt goal, nor is it anyting but hellisly hard to accomplish. Hows that for realism?
    As in fact, just getting your hostorical position (and a little extra) is usually enough of a task.

    A ss of europe, the first day of the rest of the game
    http://media.pc.ign.com/media/016/01...g_1295225.html
    The circular thingies around cities are capitals for that "nation"

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    29
    lol what are u talking about?????

  16. #16
    I think d3v has a point though. If you look at the sales of STW and MTW, it was nothing compared to Warcraft 3 or C&C. It is true : most people love a good, quick and easy to master game. It is a matter of taste, nothing much you can do about it.

    STW and MTW are great games though and there are a lot of people who did buy it. They prefer a deeper and more complex gaming experience. I prefer it above WC3, but if you don't have a lot of time, playing a MTW campaign can be frustrating due to the lack of progress.

    Now, the main reason why I kept on eye on IG is because it resembles the TW series. You can't deny it, IG has a LOT in common with the TW series. This isn't bad, it is a good genre and as long they make great games, they can copy the mechanics.

    But don't start a 'historical accurate' discussion. NO game, and I stress NO, can be historical accurate. The TW isn't accurate and IG won't be fully accurate as well. So don't critise the game because of it. You sometimes have to make sacrifices. I'm history geek myself, but developpers can only go so far. Remember Blackcoat, IG will turn out the same way : you will bring destruction to the field and buildings will be raised. Many will burn in our campaigns in IG. So, let us first see how the game actually plays, like you said.

    dv3, I know that RTW isn't a great game. Indeed, it has been dumbed down (a bit). But if you look really close, money is and always be a major thing. I mean, if developpers only wanted to develop games in order to appeal to the masses, they would hand them out for free. But that isn't how the system works.

    So, you can discuss it, but don't swear. Swearing brings nothing to a good discussion, only good and well thought-off arguments will do.

    BK, signing off

    EDIT: And I don't find Praetorians a good game. The setting was okay, but the combat way too chaotic. A good try, nothing more, IMHO.

  17. #17
    Originally posted by d3v
    Lol.
    What are you talking about?
    That if you desire a highly realistic game, you may want to try Europa Universalis II, a game that, in my view, is still one of the best.
    Ok so Syndicate rates very high too, as does MoO 1, but thats beside the point.

    Just give it a try and see if your nine years of gaming expirience like it. Also as a subtler hint to the designers here that the standards are set high, atlest for me.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    29
    You only have to watch the trailer to know the game will fail to achieve the standard that so many of us have longed for since STW and MTW.

    Lines firing down range when theirs friendly lines directly infront of them is the biggest indication in the trailer that the developers care more for the money than for the game.

    They can do it so damm easily, they can create something so realistic and depthfull so, so easily, but they wont becuase like i've been saying, the dumber the game, the bigger audience it attracts and therfore the more money it makes

    I dont know if its Pyro or Eidos who are dumbing the game down for the bigger audeince. Quite likely both parties have agreed or Pyro could be under order from Eidos to draw a low line when it comes to realism and steategical combat system... Thats useually the case

    Head of developer company: "hey mr publisher, is it okay if we add an advanced morale and weather system wherby the player must take weather and all the various morale increasing/decreasing varibles during gameplay into consideration?"

    Head of Publishing company: "Hell know, we dont want the majority of the gaming market put off by such a complicated system and it would also increase the learning curve which is no good either"

    The average gamer dosent want to have his three hundred thousand pound army he built up after 100 turns, loose a battle against a bunch of rebels becuase they have been marchin through thick mud for 2 hours and are subsequently too knackard to aim their muskets properly, nevermind scewer someone with a bayo...

    Face it, this game wont bring us the game I and all you other strategy buffs have longed for since having the pleasure of playing STW and MTW....

  19. #19
    You only have to watch the trailer to know the game will fail to achieve the standard that so many of us have longed for since STW and MTW.

    Lines firing down range when theirs friendly lines directly infront of them is the biggest indication in the trailer that the developers care more for the money than for the game.
    When the trailer was released the development of the game was in alpha stage. The first thing to do is having the game ready in big lines, then come the details.


    I dont know if its Pyro or Eidos who are dumbing the game down for the bigger audeince. Quite likely both parties have agreed or Pyro could be under order from Eidos to draw a low line when it comes to realism and steategical combat system... Thats useually the case

    Head of developer company: "hey mr publisher, is it okay if we add an advanced morale and weather system wherby the player must take weather and all the various morale increasing/decreasing varibles during gameplay into consideration?"

    Head of Publishing company: "Hell know, we dont want the majority of the gaming market put off by such a complicated system and it would also increase the learning curve which is no good either"
    Of course Eidos has influence on the final product, but if you think a dumb game attracts a bigger audience you must be dumb yourself. The game does feature a weather and morale system. I suggest you read the FAQ, stickied at the top of this forum, and read the features of the game instead of looking at screenshots and trailers before making your conclusions. Then come back (unless you have nothing better to do than flaming.)

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    29
    Yeah it know it has a morale system but my point was that it is going to be nothing more than a very, very basic one.

    There are many variables that can influence unit morale but when the morale system takes them all into consideration, you end up with a very, very steep learning curve.

    Dont disagree with that, its a proven theory in the games industry

    And what I mean by a dumb game is that the strategy and combat system will be dumbed down alot so it attracts a wider auidence.

    You know i'm right....

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    29
    Originally posted by sick
    Of course Eidos has influence on the final product,
    Actually, its not influence, its direct control over the content. its the developers that have the influence, not the control. The publishers do.

    Eidos and all other publishers for that matter, want to make as much money as they can, there not init for good quality games.

    You only have to look at the sheer ammount of genuine unoriginal poor-quality repetative un-innovative piles of we are given every year by the gaming industry with only the odd title here and there thats worth playing. There has been many years that not a single game has come ou thats worth playing for many a gamer I know of...

    I'll say this again...

    Dumb game = wider audience = more money
    Depthfull and realistic game = smaller audience = less money

    For christ sake, you only have to compare the ammount of money made from STW or MTW compared to, say Dawn of War or Fight for Middle earth to see that I'm right.

    Imperial Glory will be a good game but I can tell you right now that it will not fullfill our desires for another large-scale RTS with the realism and level of strategy and depth STW and MTW had........

  22. #22
    Grey Mouser Guest
    Crticism is allowed, swearing and being a jerk is not.

    First and only warning from me, d3v. Your thoughts and opinions - if expressed in a sane and respectful manner - get listened to.

    Ranting and cursing like a deranged sailor gets you banned. So does arguing with the Admin (me).

    So...think before you type, OK?
    GM

  23. #23
    Rule #1: The admin is always right.
    Rule #2: If the admin is not right, see rule #1.

    A classic but I still love it.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    29
    I'll refrain from bad language but its not just my opinion... its the truth... unfortunatly

    Unless the majority of the market evolve from wanting pick-up-and-play games where you can learn instantly or very quickly, we will not ever see another STW/MTW

    We will see games such as this that have basic strategical and tactical features and systems such as a morale and weather feature but they will always be very basic and we wont ever get a full on proper large-scale war game likw we got with STW and MTW... the majority simply prefer dumb games

  25. #25
    well, i never inspect how the market be affected by between high strategical game and low. But i dont agree d3v on at least package game-war simulated. yes i do understand what d3v wants to point. and i checked and saw that on a on-line flight simulation game; the later company manager(s) screwed that up to contraversly kick out the maniac hardcore customers, who were major one in the game before. and they moved to a new one that had the initiative sprit-very hard and realistic-developed by the same person who packed up together at the moment.

    As far as i experiecned by now, this type of game and the very MTW and RTW doesn't like kid(forgive me). and kid(sorry) doesn't like this historical fact based war simulation game. and on some fan-sites, i checked not a few ppl dicussing the game historical accuracy and stratigical analysis almost every day. they even made a new story, their own histories, and uploaded up on the sites. and i think this type of ppl consists of the game major customer.

Page 1 of 5 12345 Last