Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
The graphics the game is capable of are objectively improved in game 3 (better lighting, etc). But it can be unnecessarily difficult to get game 3 to look good on many systems especially with lower resolution monitors (sometimes making it necessary to use third party software like Nvidia settings). The AA options in particular seems bad for lower resolutions often resulting in a blurry look no matter the ingame settings.
When it comes to the campaign map the main difference people may dislike is a different art style for the campaign map (Meaning its subjective if its better or worse).
It is my opinion. Got problems with it? Deal with it or don't post.
The issue is that you aren't presenting it as opinions mate. Got a issue with people having issues with that? Deal with it or don't post.
Do ignore the obvious troll that somehow has a 17 years of service badge, oh boy...
As to the points above:
*UI is indeed worse but mods solve it https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=2789999718 ,also how do the massive quality of life features like the sleep indicator, or mass on unit card count as worse UI?
*Baked in depth of field on many battle maps, weird lens flare when moving the camera and the more cartoony campaign map(subjective ofc) that runs much worse are valid points but have you visited the old world badlands and mountains on TWW2 ME? lightning is incredibly plain and looks unfinished, same with most underground maps.
Your aggressive reply shows off already.
I believe that's what a troll is, but then I'm old, I might have it wrong.
Regardless, opinion does not equal fact is the only issue. Feel free to share how your feel, we'd love to hear(read) more.
NOW go get or play total war troy and WOW it slike an upgraded version of this very USER INTERFACE with enhanced graphics albeit on smaller map
my thoghts are that to sell this mode they had to drop some "enhanced imagewry" lest the only peopleplaying it would be the 300,000 people that bought 4090's
by then we all will have 7090's and have to all live together cause the cards will cost more then a house
Would give it 4/10.
Ok Boomer.
What does he write in his post that requires more than a seconds glance to make a judgment on? Please tell me, I'd love to know. That said, he knew what he was getting himself into unless he bougth the game completely without looking at any screenshot or video.
I think that technically the graphics have improved, and that it's got a more pleasant style too. However. I don't think that Warhammer is supposed to have a pleasant style. It is supposed to be GRIMDARK.
Here's a screenshot from Bretonnia in WH1:
https://i.imgur.com/nlFGu9n.jpg
And here is the same location in WH3 (and at half the FPS for the keen-eyed):
https://i.imgur.com/iEO9mmG.jpg
Both works in their own right, but I greatly prefer the style of the first one when it comes to WH.
There are no objectively better graphics. A (likely vast) majority agreeing that the graphics are better does not make that majority opinion objective.
That being said, I don't agree with the OPs opinions.
Um... yeah, I do. You don't need to speak for me, thanks.