It's wild that the same people who hated on Pharaoh being a thing, now still demand that things be left out of it.

[Risotto]

The same people that boycotted the game because it wasn't the time period they wanted, wasn't Medieval 3/Shogun 4/Empire 2, now still have the nerve to say that it shouldn't have a Mythos mode added.

If you have no intention to buy the game, you forfeit your right to an opinion on what should be added to the game.

Mythos mode was one of the best things about Troy, and most people would love a Mythos trilogy incorporating Greek, Egyptian and other ancient civilisations.

[Adventurous350]

To me, mythos is an absolute no go here. The people who do not want mythos typically are of the mindset that CA can spend time on mythos or they can spend time expanding the map, adding new factions, enhancing gameplay features, etc. Why invest so much time into adding mythical units and rebalancing the game when it could be better spent creating a better historical game? It would leave us with yet another title that is confused as to what it is supposed to be, just like Troy and Three Kingdoms. Fantasy and Historical need to be separate. No more 50/50 games. Three Kingdoms is clearly designed with romance mode in mind and historical players are left with a bare bones experience, which has ultimately led to this downfall.

Pharaoh unfortunately released at a bad time for CA. The game appeared small in scope due to the amount of territory it covered (not truly small, but appeared that way), it is not Medieval 3/Empire 2 (highly desired titles), and the price was higher because they did what other companies are doing, but did not provide a product most of the player base wanted.

Personally, I am glad Pharaoh was not a Medieval 3 or Empire 2. To me, ever since Warhammer came out the games have all had a similar feeling. This tells me that it limits the capabilities of what they can do in each series, since the underlying game is similar. When they make Medieval 3 or Empire 2 it has to be 100% its own thing and they need to innovate. The next fantasy title needs to be 100% its own thing.

[Gegenpress]

Автор сообщения: Adventurous350

To me, mythos is an absolute no go here. The people who do not want mythos typically are of the mindset that CA can spend time on mythos or they can spend time expanding the map, adding new factions, enhancing gameplay features, etc. Why invest so much time into adding mythical units and rebalancing the game when it could be better spent creating a better historical game? It would leave us with yet another title that is confused as to what it is supposed to be, just like Troy and Three Kingdoms. Fantasy and Historical need to be separate. No more 50/50 games. Three Kingdoms is clearly designed with romance mode in mind and historical players are left with a bare bones experience, which has ultimately led to this downfall.

Pharaoh unfortunately released at a bad time for CA. The game appeared small in scope due to the amount of territory it covered (not truly small, but appeared that way), it is not Medieval 3/Empire 2 (highly desired titles), and the price was higher because they did what other companies are doing, but did not provide a product most of the player base wanted.

Personally, I am glad Pharaoh was not a Medieval 3 or Empire 2. To me, ever since Warhammer came out the games have all had a similar feeling. This tells me that it limits the capabilities of what they can do in each series, since the underlying game is similar. When they make Medieval 3 or Empire 2 it has to be 100% its own thing and they need to innovate. The next fantasy title needs to be 100% its own thing.

Spot on

[elixEtneicnA]

Автор сообщения: Adventurous350

To me, mythos is an absolute no go here. The people who do not want mythos typically are of the mindset that CA can spend time on mythos or they can spend time expanding the map, adding new factions, enhancing gameplay features, etc. Why invest so much time into adding mythical units and rebalancing the game when it could be better spent creating a better historical game? It would leave us with yet another title that is confused as to what it is supposed to be, just like Troy and Three Kingdoms. Fantasy and Historical need to be separate. No more 50/50 games. Three Kingdoms is clearly designed with romance mode in mind and historical players are left with a bare bones experience, which has ultimately led to this downfall.

Pharaoh unfortunately released at a bad time for CA. The game appeared small in scope due to the amount of territory it covered (not truly small, but appeared that way), it is not Medieval 3/Empire 2 (highly desired titles), and the price was higher because they did what other companies are doing, but did not provide a product most of the player base wanted.

Personally, I am glad Pharaoh was not a Medieval 3 or Empire 2. To me, ever since Warhammer came out the games have all had a similar feeling. This tells me that it limits the capabilities of what they can do in each series, since the underlying game is similar. When they make Medieval 3 or Empire 2 it has to be 100% its own thing and they need to innovate. The next fantasy title needs to be 100% its own thing.

This title will clearly be fine and potentially better without a Mythos mode. I honestly think the Mythos mode for Troy was an attempt to bridge players over from the Warhammer titles (trying to get them involved in a more historical type of title). I appreciate the Mythos content for Troy which is fun now and then but historical is/was the root of the series since it's inception. They put hard work into Troy and the Mythos mode which was unexpected after it was free on Epic Games at launch. I see a small player-base still indulging Troy currently as well and I'd hate for them to feel abandoned/isolated from future titles because they favor Mythos type units even though I'm all for the traditional mode/style that's purely historical based.

As for Three Kingdoms being designed primarily for Romance mode, then I'd disagree because I have many hours in TW:TK and they're all in records mode. Every single play-through has been different for me and yes the generals are still a little op. It has it's flaws but I don't feel they ignored/neglected the historical player-base any in TW:TK. One caveat that did always bother me was unique weapons that are clearly only usable (their traits/abilities is what I mean) in Romance mode but it was understandable even though slightly annoying.

I'm sure Medieval 3 will have abilities as well on units and Generals both with cool-downs along with a type of Romance mode. No way are they going to neglect the Warhammer zombie player-base and withhold their primary playstyle which involves a mixture of Romance play for the heroes and Mythos type units. We will never get another historical title that is reminiscent of the roots the series stemmed from.

If they do put the hero mess in the next historical title (hopefully Medieval), then I hope they include some sort of pre-battle duel option. I mean where a champion can challenge one of theirs and whoever loses gets a morale penalty or defense penalty for the pending battle. I just hope they mix up the romance mode stuff and don't TW:TK it and make the single unit commanders able to take out hundreds of units in mere moments. Regardless, I feel/understand your sentiment about the next historical title needing to be it's own thing but the reality is all future Total War titles will be "hybrids"........

........Woe to the vanquished......

[Risotto]

Автор сообщения: Adventurous350

To me, mythos is an absolute no go here. The people who do not want mythos typically are of the mindset that CA can spend time on mythos or they can spend time expanding the map, adding new factions, enhancing gameplay features, etc. Why invest so much time into adding mythical units and rebalancing the game when it could be better spent creating a better historical game? It would leave us with yet another title that is confused as to what it is supposed to be, just like Troy and Three Kingdoms. Fantasy and Historical need to be separate. No more 50/50 games. Three Kingdoms is clearly designed with romance mode in mind and historical players are left with a bare bones experience, which has ultimately led to this downfall.

Pharaoh unfortunately released at a bad time for CA. The game appeared small in scope due to the amount of territory it covered (not truly small, but appeared that way), it is not Medieval 3/Empire 2 (highly desired titles), and the price was higher because they did what other companies are doing, but did not provide a product most of the player base wanted.

Personally, I am glad Pharaoh was not a Medieval 3 or Empire 2. To me, ever since Warhammer came out the games have all had a similar feeling. This tells me that it limits the capabilities of what they can do in each series, since the underlying game is similar. When they make Medieval 3 or Empire 2 it has to be 100% its own thing and they need to innovate. The next fantasy title needs to be 100% its own thing.

The historical mode is done though. You have the map expansion.

To get the game going they should add Mythos.

[Adventurous350]

Mythos needs to be a totally different game to me.

[Hori]

Автор сообщения: Risotto

The historical mode is done though. You have the map expansion.

I would prefer them spending any new working hours they could get on improving the ‘historical mode’. Adding missing places, factions and mechanics, remaking the in-game Aegean art so that it looks faithful to 1200 BC rather than to 600 BC, fixing famous places looking nothing like the real thing.

[Killersnipe]

Автор сообщения: Herr Robert

Many players who own the game including myself are not interested in mythos. But I disagree on peoples' opinions being irrelevant if they don't own the game. Even some of the haters are potential customers after all.

True. I didn't buy the game because it was not a true Bronze Age Total War which is what most people wanted (I don't care about playing Egypt focused game as they have been a faction in many previous Total War games already). And despite being critical of the game at release, I will consider buying this Dynasty edition now that the greater Bronze Age is included. This is on condition that combat changes actually improve it, which was my other complaint from the start with this game and with Troy (needs improved collision & hit mechanics, combat visuals and more tactical gameplay). If that is all in the update then I will give this game a purchase for sure now

Автор сообщения: Risotto

The same people that boycotted the game because it wasn't the time period they wanted, wasn't Medieval 3/Shogun 4/Empire 2, now still have the nerve to say that it shouldn't have a Mythos mode added.

Mythos mode was one of the best things about Troy, and most people would love a Mythos trilogy incorporating Greek, Egyptian and other ancient civilisations.

I disagree with the OP's take on Mythos. I don't think it needs Mythos. Honestly, my main issue with this and why I think Pharaoh had lowest player base at release of any Total War game is because of how CA went about these Sophia projects (Troy and Pharaoh). Honestly it would have been a success if they had first given us a proper Total War Bronze Age with the factions included in this new update (perhaps minus Greek factions) and then made Total War Troy in its Mythos form as a DLC for the Bronze Age total war game (where Greek factions were then added as playable in main campaign, in a historical form, for those who purchased the Troy DLC). Instead they tried to get too Greedy and piecemeal these as separate games to milk additional money from players with most of the content for each locked behind what they planned to be paid dlcs (i.e. the Mythos edition of TROY, the Mesopotamian factions in Pharaoh etc.)

They would have made loads more money not producing the content in this greedy model

[Risotto]

Автор сообщения: Killersnipe

Автор сообщения: Herr Robert

Many players who own the game including myself are not interested in mythos. But I disagree on peoples' opinions being irrelevant if they don't own the game. Even some of the haters are potential customers after all.

True. I didn't buy the game because it was not a true Bronze Age Total War which is what most people wanted (I don't care about playing Egypt focused game as they have been a faction in many previous Total War games already). And despite being critical of the game at release, I will consider buying this Dynasty edition now that the greater Bronze Age is included. This is on condition that combat changes actually improve it, which was my other complaint from the start with this game and with Troy (needs improved collision & hit mechanics, combat visuals and more tactical gameplay). If that is all in the update then I will give this game a purchase for sure now

Автор сообщения: Risotto

The same people that boycotted the game because it wasn't the time period they wanted, wasn't Medieval 3/Shogun 4/Empire 2, now still have the nerve to say that it shouldn't have a Mythos mode added.

Mythos mode was one of the best things about Troy, and most people would love a Mythos trilogy incorporating Greek, Egyptian and other ancient civilisations.

I disagree with the OP's take on Mythos. I don't think it needs Mythos. Honestly, my main issue with this and why I think Pharaoh had lowest player base at release of any Total War game is because of how CA went about these Sophia projects (Troy and Pharaoh). Honestly it would have been a success if they had first given us a proper Total War Bronze Age with the factions included in this new update (perhaps minus Greek factions) and then made Total War Troy in its Mythos form as a DLC for the Bronze Age total war game (where Greek factions were then added as playable in main campaign, in a historical form, for those who purchased the Troy DLC). Instead they tried to get too Greedy and piecemeal these as separate games to milk additional money from players with most of the content for each locked behind what they planned to be paid dlcs (i.e. the Mythos edition of TROY, the Mesopotamian factions in Pharaoh etc.)

They would have made loads more money not producing the content in this greedy model

One of the biggest complaints I saw from the historical fans was that this game was based on Bronze Age. Most of the historical fans hated this setting because it wasn't Medieval 3. Right from the get go at announcement, historical fans hated this.

The only real support I saw was coming from those speculating whether this would combine with Troy for a full on Age of Mythology game.

[Killersnipe]

Автор сообщения: Risotto

One of the biggest complaints I saw from the historical fans was that this game was based on Bronze Age. Most of the historical fans hated this setting because it wasn't Medieval 3. Right from the get go at announcement, historical fans hated this.

The only real support I saw was coming from those speculating whether this would combine with Troy for a full on Age of Mythology game.

This is untrue. This was not one of the biggest complaints. The major complaints were with the lack of a FULL Bronze Age. The game decided to take an Egypt focus rather than go with entire Bronze Age. No one had asked for an Egypt focused game but much of the TW community was interested in a full Bronze Age game. The second major complaint was the price. It released as one of the most expensive total war games and priced as a mainline game whereas its content and scope fit more as a Saga game (CA later admitted and agreed that the initial price point was greedy and they lowered it and refunded people who paid the high price at launch).

People generally understood that cavalry is not big in Bronze Age but the fact that chariot combat and hit mechanics were extremely messed up made the alternative to cavalry (chariots) unsatisfying to use. There is in fact a huge Bronze Age mod for Rome II that is pretty popular in the community (Age of Bronze Total War). So this critique about the Bronze Age in general being unpopular is absurd. It could have been successful if CA had marketed it different and provided more content at launch (releasing it as a true Bronze Age Total War with Mesopotamia etc. included at launch).

Edit: Another major complaint from historical fans was with the character based factions rather than playing as kingdoms (which is something fixed in the Bronze Age mod for Rome II where you play as the kingdoms instead)

I assume the people complaining about lack of cavalry and unit diversity were primarily Warhammer fans and not the historical total war fans who this game was meant to appeal to (or maybe it tried too hard to appeal to both groups, with some of these Warhammer features like immortal faction leaders, and failed to appeal to either)

[Kendji]

Well, my understanding was it was; (a list of complaints)
*Small scope/map (I agree)
*All units are naked/no cav/lack of variety (bling bling, think it sort of misses the point)
*Boring (I guess, what ever floats ones boat..)
*No strategic dept (I disagreed and disagree with this)
*Watered down game (I disagreed and disagree with this)
*Wrong setting, not Medieval 3 or E2. (personally I would've liked an Rome setting done properly with twp type of features rather than twp, but Bronze age is still more interesting than Medieval period personally)
*Dumb AI (Can't really disagree, though it's a little better than most tw)
*Old game Engine (Meh)
*CA/SEGA ARRRRGGHH!!!! (Uhm.. sure, though remember this is a product returning and modernizing many old features and innovating)
*WH DLC price hike ARGHH!!! (I agree that was a d**k move by CA)

Those are the ones ppl been hammering over and over again, like a broken record, as if repeating the same arguments automatically convinces anybody to hate a game they like..