Why the low popularity?

[Ligon Flarius]

I get it, it is a small game, no DLCs, etc. But the delivery, all bug fixes considered, is something of a better quality than Attila. The graphics are slightly better than Attila and yet there are NO FPS drops. Battles look better and are smooth. And as far as Total War AI goes, I have no complaints with the Campaign or battle AI in this game. In fact, it is better than Attila and much better than Rome II.

I mean, I am yet to see a very stupid, immersion-breaking mistake by the AI during battles, as I have seen in Attila in siege battles.

As for the campaign, well, I haven't seen the AI being genius, but nothing terrible, plus we have mods to tailor AI campaign behaviour. The campaign mechanics, general follower systen, the constructions, each faction individual mechanics, which is something I love in Troy, is here in this game too!

Honestly I don't see why people complaing about this game so much. And I'd like to know why

[easytarget]

Timing of release perhaps? The gamer base for TW series wanted M3 instead? Something they never stop banging on about.

But my main theory is gamers can develop a group mob behavior that when combined with everyone being anonymous results in a piling on effect so they can look cool and be one of the gang. It's why I've never been on twitter or FB. And once a trend starts either good or bad it continues and gains momentum, but mostly when it's negative because everyone just loves being negative online.

My suggestion to Valve would be: never allow anyone to review a game that didn't buy it, and no free copy reviews whatsoever (and if they returned w/in 2 hrs block their review as well, I've zero interest in reading an opinion of any game I deem worth playing based on 2 hours). I'd even go so far as getting CA to give a benchmark on how long an average player takes to complete a long campaign, and then I'd set that as a threshold below which you don't get to review the game. Sure people could idle their computer to get around it if they're determined to review bomb a game, but you know if I set it at 30 hours and you want to waste your system access in order to bomb, go for it.

This would weed out a decent chunk of the mob in the review section.

And while we're at it I'd also fix steam forums:

Every post costs you 1 steam point.
And you can only post in a steam forum for games you actually own.

Implement even 1 or 2 of any of the above and you're headed in the right direction towards taking back control from the mob.

[dulany67]

A lot could be said about why (including the mob mentality of steam), but I tend to believe that the combination of new units taking time to muster, minor settlements having no garrison, and weather effects, heavily slowed the game down for a certain type of TW player that looks to paint the map.

Notably, 3K kept these elements except it does provide minor settlement garrisons.

[easytarget]

Well I mean if those are the reasons then they entirely missed the point of this game, in my view all of those are features not issues.

[Lexter]

Originally posted by dulany67:

... that the combination of new units taking time to muster, minor settlements having no garrison, and weather effects, heavily slowed the game down for a certain type of TW player that looks to paint the map. ...

These are points, which I really enjoy in this game.

[wibblywobblywonder]

Well, I enjoy this game in a lowkey way. I have 130+ hours and play a campaign every now and again, but I do think there are some things which reduced its replayability and popularity:

1. lack of features, which i think is the big one. The campaign lacks interactivity; things like agents (as much as I hate them in some other titles), ambushes, varied religions, famous cities aside from London and York to a lesser extent. Insta-trade agreements (why bother adding trade to the game then?) The map is just kind of a dull place. there's little to do aside from move armies from point A to point B.

2. Unit variety. It's really poor. I don't mean needing different sets of armour and tunics. I mean that skirmishers from Ireland look and play exactly the same way as skirmishers from Kent. Shieldwalls every battle with identical troops. Historical? Perhaps. But it's a *game* and games need to transcend repetitiveness in some way even if that means bending rules like 'historical accuracy'.

3. Starting year. Playing Alfred the Great should have been a thrilling, edge-of-your-seat challenge. Lose one battle and the pagan vikings swallow your teetering kingdom. Sure AI Wessex would have struggled, but that's where scripting and AI bonuses step in and prop it up or something along those lines (i'm sure the developers could have come up with something). Instead, playing Wessex - what should have been *the* faction of the game - is a boring cakewalk.

4. Aesthetics and music. This is subjective, of course. But I think it would have had a subtle deadening effect. A few animated cutscenes with actual in-game models would have done wonders to bring my faction alive. The 2D art had a snappy aesthetic, but it also obscured the characters. Aside from real-time battles, I only ever saw my generals and FLs via those 2D dark ages animations. Sometimes never at all if they didn't fight. The 2D art needed animated models and 'realistic' portraits somewhere sometime to counter-balance the 2D stylism.
I confess that I dislike modern TW music. I just want to introduce its composer to percussion, rhythm and melodic resolution. And snatch that ♥♥♥♥♥♥ flute from their hands. Gods I hate that flute.

There are a few other things I could say. i especially agree with easytarget's observations about crowd behaviour. The recent positive review trends of this game would suggest that this game was dogpiled, not entirely unfairly due to its weaknesses, but there was an element of spite to it - that it wasn't the game to cater to specific tastes, so it was targeted.

[dulany67]

Originally posted by easytarget:

Well I mean if those are the reasons then they entirely missed the point of this game, in my view all of those are features not issues.

I agree.

[mariandavid]

I think this game and Shogun II come the closest of the Total War series to putting a player into the position a real general/ruler would have faced at their period . In this case Issues such as time to raise troops, food to supply them, how to defend unprotected villages and towns, the endless threat of unexpected Viking raids and so on. All the issues that really mattered. But of course this slowed down the game and the lack of 'peculiarities', such as agents, magic and so on - and with above all the time it takes to form up and move an army would have probably made those who play Total War as a succession of battles stay away.

[Lt. William L. Calley]

Originally posted by easytarget:

Timing of release perhaps? The gamer base for TW series wanted M3 instead? Something they never stop banging on about.

But my main theory is gamers can develop a group mob behavior that when combined with everyone being anonymous results in a piling on effect so they can look cool and be one of the gang. It's why I've never been on twitter or FB. And once a trend starts either good or bad it continues and gains momentum, but mostly when it's negative because everyone just loves being negative online.

My suggestion to Valve would be: never allow anyone to review a game that didn't buy it, and no free copy reviews whatsoever (and if they returned w/in 2 hrs block their review as well, I've zero interest in reading an opinion of any game I deem worth playing based on 2 hours). I'd even go so far as getting CA to give a benchmark on how long an average player takes to complete a long campaign, and then I'd set that as a threshold below which you don't get to review the game. Sure people could idle their computer to get around it if they're determined to review bomb a game, but you know if I set it at 30 hours and you want to waste your system access in order to bomb, go for it.

This would weed out a decent chunk of the mob in the review section.

And while we're at it I'd also fix steam forums:

Every post costs you 1 steam point.
And you can only post in a steam forum for games you actually own.

Implement even 1 or 2 of any of the above and you're headed in the right direction towards taking back control from the mob.

the problem is some games today at launch you cant even play for two hours before servers go down for 3 days or the game just wont start. idk if you have heard about outriders but it had a really ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ bad launch and has now lost 93% of its population within a month. if people were not able to leave a thumbs down review of that game more people would have bought a game that they would never play.

[easytarget]

But you make processes to address the vast majority of the issue you seek to address, not by setting up a process for edge cases like your example.

[St_Winter]

I read a review once saying that the game being stuck in the time period it was in, lead to the style of play being very narrow. Calvary wasn't very heavily used during this time period, not like other total war games, which hurt a lot of players who utilized cav a lot. This game is very focused with shield wall formations and a lot of locking of troops. This also lead to people feeling "bored" when playing the game. Personally, I love it and I love that it sticks with the style and history. I also enjoy the way the game plays, the locking of troops gives me time to issue other orders or try to flank, or simply zoom in and watch the battle. A lot of other newer total war games just feels to arcadey and heavy micro management. I want a battle to work, look, and feel like a real battle. Why I haven't jumped into Warhammer (also because it's bloody expensive) and others. I did get Troy for free but I can't stand the way the game plays. Basically feels like I'm playing Age of Mythology in organizing an army and the battles they are in versus actually setting up tactics and formations that will benefit me if I strategize better than my opponent.

[Big Boss]

The reason is because this game annoys people.

TW players want more stuff to do in each game. This game's main game mechanic is giving us less to do.

If this game was stand alone from a different franchise people probably would have liked it.

As part of the franchise with great games like Shogun 2 in the past we want the franchise to take us back to great games like that and expand on all the stuff we could do. For me at least that is why I love 3 Kingdoms. First game since Shogun 2 that finally gives us back all the diplomatic options and gives the player a lot of little things they can do other than simple army building and battle fighting.

The whole premise of a simplified campaign just pisses me off to no end. Whoever came up with this stuff needs to be fired.

Thankfully though it seems like CA learned their lesson and when they make Medieval 3 it will have a fully fleshed out campaign with tons of gameplay options and diplomacy.

[easytarget]

The above post reads like satire to me.

[Tjaka Erasmus]

In spite of all the negative reviews, I can't find a reason not to play this game. This game remains in my favourites shelf and when it's it's time to get played it gets played. I think the negative reviews is a bit unfair, to be quite honest.

[Mile pro Libertate]

Originally posted by Tjaka Erasmus:

In spite of all the negative reviews, I can't find a reason not to play this game. This game remains in my favourites shelf and when it's it's time to get played it gets played. I think the negative reviews is a bit unfair, to be quite honest.

It's totally unjustified. Like EasyTatget said, it was basically a mob, or what I call bandwagon, factor here. It became socially expected to hate on ToB in the TW community, so most people chose to do that rather than give the game a shot.

[Fang]

Originally posted by easytarget:

Timing of release perhaps? The gamer base for TW series wanted M3 instead? Something they never stop banging on about.

But my main theory is gamers can develop a group mob behavior that when combined with everyone being anonymous results in a piling on effect so they can look cool and be one of the gang. It's why I've never been on twitter or FB. And once a trend starts either good or bad it continues and gains momentum, but mostly when it's negative because everyone just loves being negative online.

My suggestion to Valve would be: never allow anyone to review a game that didn't buy it, and no free copy reviews whatsoever (and if they returned w/in 2 hrs block their review as well, I've zero interest in reading an opinion of any game I deem worth playing based on 2 hours). I'd even go so far as getting CA to give a benchmark on how long an average player takes to complete a long campaign, and then I'd set that as a threshold below which you don't get to review the game. Sure people could idle their computer to get around it if they're determined to review bomb a game, but you know if I set it at 30 hours and you want to waste your system access in order to bomb, go for it.

This would weed out a decent chunk of the mob in the review section.

And while we're at it I'd also fix steam forums:

Every post costs you 1 steam point.
And you can only post in a steam forum for games you actually own.

Implement even 1 or 2 of any of the above and you're headed in the right direction towards taking back control from the mob.

I am interested in reviews with less than 2 hours - because those are the ones that, at launch, say "the game doesn't fecking work because it's an unfinished broken piece of trash", which happens more and more often with fancy new releases.

Rather than blocking it, they should allow people to filter reviews even more.

But yes, people expect every total war game to be a massive blockbuster. Thrones of Britannia and Troy are basically just smaller spinoffs that have plenty of fun to offer on their own.