So Tired of this Crap

[The Biggest Fish]

The quality of total war games have gone seriously downhill since Shogun 2. Rome 2 was still pretty good, and Attila is probably still my favorite TW game, this is because everything since has completely changed styles. It doesn't even feel like total war anymore. Units don't have any sense of weight, there is too much crap cluttering up the UI, it feels like a cartoon now instead of historical games. The campaigns are too small in scale, and they have this CA has this fixation on historical figures, i mean its cool to play as someone like Oda Nabunaga, but if you messed up in Shogun 2 you could get the guy killed, that created tension that does not exist when your faction leader can just keep coming back.

CA needs to go back to the style of the past, i BEG you to look at your old titles like Shogun 2 and Medieval 2. take a good, hard look at the mechanics that you have forgotten about, like how firearms felt then vs now. The community has been asking for a real historical title like Medieval 3 or Empire 2 for years, and you guys keep producing crap like this, 3 kingdoms, and Troy. It feels like a quick, cheap money grab.

The first total war game I ever played was Rome, I probably have over 1000 hours in that game, and in some respects, the original Rome is still better than the stuff that is coming out now. like the formations, instead of just have health bars and damage modifiers, like the new games, the original Rome actually felt like a real testudo, you can see projectiles bouncing off the shields, if you hit it from the side you can see how the shields aren't blocking the projectiles and the men fall like flies. Somewhere along the way, we lost that. I HATE the health bars in newer total war games, it completely takes me out of the game, i lose all immersion.

I am pleading with CA to give us a real historical title, to take a step back and make a truly great game like Shogun 2, Medieval 2, or Napoleon, with a grand scale again.

[Heraclius Caesar]

Originally posted by The Biggest Fish:

The quality of total war games have gone seriously downhill since Shogun 2. Rome 2 was still pretty good, and Attila is probably still my favorite TW game, this is because everything since has completely changed styles. It doesn't even feel like total war anymore. Units don't have any sense of weight, there is too much crap cluttering up the UI, it feels like a cartoon now instead of historical games. The campaigns are too small in scale, and they have this CA has this fixation on historical figures, i mean its cool to play as someone like Oda Nabunaga, but if you messed up in Shogun 2 you could get the guy killed, that created tension that does not exist when your faction leader can just keep coming back.

CA needs to go back to the style of the past, i BEG you to look at your old titles like Shogun 2 and Medieval 2. take a good, hard look at the mechanics that you have forgotten about, like how firearms felt then vs now. The community has been asking for a real historical title like Medieval 3 or Empire 2 for years, and you guys keep producing crap like this, 3 kingdoms, and Troy. It feels like a quick, cheap money grab.

The first total war game I ever played was Rome, I probably have over 1000 hours in that game, and in some respects, the original Rome is still better than the stuff that is coming out now. like the formations, instead of just have health bars and damage modifiers, like the new games, the original Rome actually felt like a real testudo, you can see projectiles bouncing off the shields, if you hit it from the side you can see how the shields aren't blocking the projectiles and the men fall like flies. Somewhere along the way, we lost that. I HATE the health bars in newer total war games, it completely takes me out of the game, i lose all immersion.

I am pleading with CA to give us a real historical title, to take a step back and make a truly great game like Shogun 2, Medieval 2, or Napoleon, with a grand scale again.

Well said

[toskyrun]

how boring!
you will have your medieval 3-4-5-6 when the whole warhammer cycle ends.
when it's finished they will have to divert all the fans somewhere, then they will release the long awaited med 3./empire 2/rome 15 etc

[TheOrangeBox]

Originally posted by toskyrun:

how boring!
you will have your medieval 3-4-5-6 when the whole warhammer cycle ends.
when it's finished they will have to divert all the fans somewhere, then they will release the long awaited med 3./empire 2/rome 15 etc

It would sale to a minority.

Rome Remastered is a case in point where more people are still playing the Classic instead of the remaster.

[Yews]

Troy is pretty much Shogun 2 in the Aegean but somehow it’s inferior simply for being newer 😂
Total War community moment

[Heraclius Caesar]

Originally posted by Spartan.117:

God im tired of people LIKE YOU thinking hes speaking for entire community you already have Med2 and napoleon go there if you are not interested in this game what are you doing here wasting people time? aint gonna read all i stopped after med3.

Everything OP said is entirely correct, if you don't like it too bad dude. Not all of us want to quietly sit there and shove CAs crap sandwiches in our beaks year after year.

[PERICLES1789]

Originally posted by The Biggest Fish:

The quality of total war games have gone seriously downhill since Shogun 2. Rome 2 was still pretty good, and Attila is probably still my favorite TW game, this is because everything since has completely changed styles. It doesn't even feel like total war anymore. Units don't have any sense of weight, there is too much crap cluttering up the UI, it feels like a cartoon now instead of historical games. The campaigns are too small in scale, and they have this CA has this fixation on historical figures, i mean its cool to play as someone like Oda Nabunaga, but if you messed up in Shogun 2 you could get the guy killed, that created tension that does not exist when your faction leader can just keep coming back.

CA needs to go back to the style of the past, i BEG you to look at your old titles like Shogun 2 and Medieval 2. take a good, hard look at the mechanics that you have forgotten about, like how firearms felt then vs now. The community has been asking for a real historical title like Medieval 3 or Empire 2 for years, and you guys keep producing crap like this, 3 kingdoms, and Troy. It feels like a quick, cheap money grab.

The first total war game I ever played was Rome, I probably have over 1000 hours in that game, and in some respects, the original Rome is still better than the stuff that is coming out now. like the formations, instead of just have health bars and damage modifiers, like the new games, the original Rome actually felt like a real testudo, you can see projectiles bouncing off the shields, if you hit it from the side you can see how the shields aren't blocking the projectiles and the men fall like flies. Somewhere along the way, we lost that. I HATE the health bars in newer total war games, it completely takes me out of the game, i lose all immersion.

I am pleading with CA to give us a real historical title, to take a step back and make a truly great game like Shogun 2, Medieval 2, or Napoleon, with a grand scale again.

I've been playing total war since the 1st shogun. I understand your disappointment at the lack of a medieval 3. But your disappointment is a bit excessive. 3 Kingdoms and Troy have their own merits. And there is an audience for a new game in the Bronze Age. Let's settle for a good game now while waiting for a future hit with a new graphics engine in a future maybe not so far away.

[Spartan.117]

Originally posted by Heraclius Caesar:

Originally posted by Spartan.117:

God im tired of people LIKE YOU thinking hes speaking for entire community you already have Med2 and napoleon go there if you are not interested in this game what are you doing here wasting people time? aint gonna read all i stopped after med3.

Everything OP said is entirely correct, if you don't like it too bad dude. Not all of us want to quietly sit there and shove CAs crap sandwiches in our beaks year after year.

there are people who like bronze age whats wrong with it? this game isnt that ♥♥♥♥ to be fair Sofia is doing a good job adding again some mechanic we didnt see for many years and looking the streams from the dev the game look pretty polished.
He said the game Rome 2 was good when at the launch it was totaly bad with 1000 bugs it had to go through 20+ patches to be on a playable state and today in someway is still garbage. Med2 is meh as vanilla game same can be said for empire.
He called those games crap when Three Kingdoms by far is much better than Rome 2 ?
and I say this as a roman fanboy. ATTILA should have been ROME 2 is much better.

[Heraclius Caesar]

Originally posted by Spartan.117:

Originally posted by Heraclius Caesar:

Everything OP said is entirely correct, if you don't like it too bad dude. Not all of us want to quietly sit there and shove CAs crap sandwiches in our beaks year after year.

there are people who like bronze age whats wrong with it? this game isnt that ♥♥♥♥ to be fair Sofia is doing a good job adding again some mechanic we didnt see for many years and looking the streams from the dev the game look pretty polished.
He said the game Rome 2 was good when at the launch it was totaly bad with 1000 bugs it had to go through 20+ patches to be on a playable state and today in someway is still garbage. Med2 is meh as vanilla game same can be said for empire.
He called those games crap when Three Kingdoms by far is much better than Rome 2 ?
and I say this as a roman fanboy. ATTILA should have been ROME 2 is much better.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, I have Pharaoh on my wish list and intend to get it eventually. Personally I'm interested to an extent in the Bronze Age & the Bronze Age Collapse but I'm far more interested in the medieval and early modern periods, and considering Medieval II came out nearly 20 years ago and Empire 13 years ago it would be great to at least know if sequels to either of these games are even in development or will be in the near future.

[PERICLES1789]

Originally posted by Heraclius Caesar:

Originally posted by Spartan.117:

there are people who like bronze age whats wrong with it? this game isnt that ♥♥♥♥ to be fair Sofia is doing a good job adding again some mechanic we didnt see for many years and looking the streams from the dev the game look pretty polished.
He said the game Rome 2 was good when at the launch it was totaly bad with 1000 bugs it had to go through 20+ patches to be on a playable state and today in someway is still garbage. Med2 is meh as vanilla game same can be said for empire.
He called those games crap when Three Kingdoms by far is much better than Rome 2 ?
and I say this as a roman fanboy. ATTILA should have been ROME 2 is much better.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with it, I have Pharaoh on my wish list and intend to get it eventually. Personally I'm interested to an extent in the Bronze Age & the Bronze Age Collapse but I'm far more interested in the medieval and early modern periods, and considering Medieval II came out nearly 20 years ago and Empire 13 years ago it would be great to at least know if sequels to either of these games are even in development or will be in the near future.

Perhaps something can help us to see more clearly. The fact that the Total War Medieval trademark has been registered. It has already been pointed out to me that this legal element is insufficient; That is correct, but it is already a first step.

[jonoliveira12]

The games you liked are NEVER coming back, instead you should just go play them.
CA is not your personal design team, they do not have to make the specific products you want, you paid them for products you liked, they owe you no new products.

[Yews]

The arguments these people use. It has been twenty years since Medieval II! Well, alright, it has been infinitely longer since a Bronze Age game, because there was never a Bronze Age game; by this logic CA should never ever make games set in eras they have already visited.

Also the original team is currently busy with something and no one says that they are not making a medieval game. If they are not working on a medieval game, chances are, the next game will be Medieval III, because today is a great moment to visit that setting again, with the experience and technology they have accumulated since their last visit to the era.

But we know that when they announce Medieval III, 50% of forum posts will be irrational whining and threats to the team, justified by the fact that Medieval III is not exactly the same game as Medieval II.

[TheOrangeBox]

To be honest 90% of these threads are summarised in one sentence:

• "CA needs to go back to the style of the past"

which highlights if CA/SEGA is going to release another total Europe warscape game they're already been set to fail by the very same people.

None of these threads has shown some innovations to draw upon nor any other historical settings that deserve to be explored and look upon.

Kings & Knights or Pikes & Muskets - just get mods and be merry.

[Toaster Maximus]

Originally posted by Spartan.117:

Originally posted by Heraclius Caesar:

Everything OP said is entirely correct, if you don't like it too bad dude. Not all of us want to quietly sit there and shove CAs crap sandwiches in our beaks year after year.

there are people who like bronze age whats wrong with it? this game isnt that ♥♥♥♥ to be fair Sofia is doing a good job adding again some mechanic we didnt see for many years and looking the streams from the dev the game look pretty polished.
He said the game Rome 2 was good when at the launch it was totaly bad with 1000 bugs it had to go through 20+ patches to be on a playable state and today in someway is still garbage. Med2 is meh as vanilla game same can be said for empire.
He called those games crap when Three Kingdoms by far is much better than Rome 2 ?
and I say this as a roman fanboy. ATTILA should have been ROME 2 is much better.

Still remember one of the early sieges bugs that made you auto resolve it, cause any type of menstrual play crashed it which made playing one of the roman houses impossible since was part of their early goals Rome 2 was a mess at the start part of why it didn't take right away. had lots of sells but people toughed through it and learned to avoid some of the bugs oon the map but still no where near what was expected and oddly one of the few total war games that I hit the early bugs

[Heraclius Caesar]

Originally posted by Yews:

The arguments these people use. It has been twenty years since Medieval II! Well, alright, it has been infinitely longer since a Bronze Age game, because there was never a Bronze Age game; by this logic CA should never ever make games set in eras they have already visited.

Also the original team is currently busy with something and no one says that they are not making a medieval game. If they are not working on a medieval game, chances are, the next game will be Medieval III, because today is a great moment to visit that setting again, with the experience and technology they have accumulated since their last visit to the era.

But we know that when they announce Medieval III, 50% of forum posts will be irrational whining and threats to the team, justified by the fact that Medieval III is not exactly the same game as Medieval II.

Since I'm the only one here that mentioned it's been nearly 20 years since Medieval II then I have to assume you're talking about me. Kind of odd that you can't be bothered to quote people you're apparently responding to/talking about, I noticed this in our little back and forth on the other thread.

I'm guessing you didn't actually read what I said since you seem to be confused and clearly didn't understand, but mentioning the nearly 20 year time frame wasn't an argument at all. I said that considering it's been nearly 20 years since Medieval 2 & nearly 13 years since Empire, it would be great to know if sequels to these games are even in development or will be in the near future. Saying something would be "great to know" is hardly an argument bud, despite your attempt to pretend otherwise to fit your little narrative.

Mentioning this nearly 20 year time frame also has absolutely nothing to do with the time periods of other games. And I love how you say there's never been a Bronze Age Total War. Isn't Troy set in the Bronze Age dear Mr. Know-it-all-who-apparently-doesn't-know-it-all (though he runs around the forum pretending to)? You seem to love saying "by this logic.." yet your snarky little commentary usually misses the mark and is erroneous.

Frankly I don't care what the original team is working on. There has been no announcement and no inkling as to what it could be so I won't get my hopes up. I do agree though that now would be a great time to make a Medieval III.

People are people. They'll whine on this forum and they'll whine on others. It is what it is.

[Spartan.117]

Originally posted by Heraclius Caesar:

Originally posted by Yews:

The arguments these people use. It has been twenty years since Medieval II! Well, alright, it has been infinitely longer since a Bronze Age game, because there was never a Bronze Age game; by this logic CA should never ever make games set in eras they have already visited.

Also the original team is currently busy with something and no one says that they are not making a medieval game. If they are not working on a medieval game, chances are, the next game will be Medieval III, because today is a great moment to visit that setting again, with the experience and technology they have accumulated since their last visit to the era.

But we know that when they announce Medieval III, 50% of forum posts will be irrational whining and threats to the team, justified by the fact that Medieval III is not exactly the same game as Medieval II.

Since I'm the only one here that mentioned it's been nearly 20 years since Medieval II then I have to assume you're talking about me. Kind of odd that you can't be bothered to quote people you're apparently responding to/talking about, I noticed this in our little back and forth on the other thread.

I'm guessing you didn't actually read what I said since you seem to be confused and clearly didn't understand, but mentioning the nearly 20 year time frame wasn't an argument at all. I said that considering it's been nearly 20 years since Medieval 2 & nearly 13 years since Empire, it would be great to know if sequels to these games are even in development or will be in the near future. Saying something would be "great to know" is hardly an argument bud, despite your attempt to pretend otherwise to fit your little narrative.

Mentioning this nearly 20 year time frame also has absolutely nothing to do with the time periods of other games. And I love how you say there's never been a Bronze Age Total War. Isn't Troy set in the Bronze Age dear Mr. Know-it-all-who-apparently-doesn't-know-it-all (though he runs around the forum pretending to)? You seem to love saying "by this logic.." yet your snarky little commentary usually misses the mark and is erroneous.

Frankly I don't care what the original team is working on. There has been no announcement and no inkling as to what it could be so I won't get my hopes up. I do agree though that now would be a great time to make a Medieval III.

People are people. They'll whine on this forum and they'll whine on others. It is what it is.

Troy is about the Trojan wars because is set on this Age doesnt mean anything and its only focus is the trojan wars with pharaoh is different we will get more just need mycean and mesopotamia and we get atleast a bronze age game even if we are missing europe.
you guys can cry how much you want this is Sofia not the main team. go cry on discord and complain there.
what a waste of time you forget to mention napoleon a second game set in that same era as empire.