The PROBLEM with Total War: Pharaoh
Vložit
- čas přidán 1. 06. 2024
- Blake's Takes delivers his impression of Creative Assembly's recently announced game Total War: Pharaoh. Are these flaws and shortcomings of Pharaoh salvageable? This video reviews Total War: Pharaoh based on the current marketing available to the public.
Today we'll be having a look at the Problem with Total War: Pharaoh. We'll be Examining DLC and additional content in Pharaoh, as well as value for money, coupled with known gameplay issues.
=====================================
Timestamps
00:00 - Introduction
01:06 - Problem 1: Is this a saga game?
02:52 - Problem 2: The trouble with chariots
05:31 - Problem 3: Is Pharaoh a Troy reskin?
06:42 - Problem 4: The lack of cultures
08:11 - Problem 5: Cosmetic DLC
10:17 - Problem 6: Pricing
10:55 - Blake's Take™ & conclusion
=====================================
Zerkovich's Total War: Pharaoh gameplay video:
• First look & impressio... - Hry
The solution to the problem : Boycott. Just as much as people should have done with Brittannia, just as much as people should have done with Troy, just as much as people should understand their rights to be respected as customers with a game that is enough crafted for its expense. No money for the company, never will they do again such a performance for you lads. YOU deserve MUCH MUCH better, from a company, which has such benefits (look it up, they are dealing well), that it should bother us when they gave us so little polished games at release since quite a lot of years. They can do much better and we know it. They have the ressources for it, and we still give them the easy solutions and routes.
So please, stop preordering, let the professionals tell you the legit truth at the relaese date about the product, and boycott (even if it hurts) to stop having half baked games. You have more power than you think, you deserve respect and quality for the money you've made from your work. Thank you Blake for your content ! A pleasure.
Your words are like sweetened honey and were a joy to read.
Yeah, it is decided...
get pinned you beautiful commentor.
Couldn’t agree more. As consumers we have the power not to spend our money on this. Hopefully CA will listen.
That’s funny. Because people like the games, Troy and Brittannia . Not me (never played them) imo but always heard praise for those games.
Who are the professionals?
Society is too stupid to done this. Corporations know this and dont care is idepwndent thinking minority of society boicoting this. This why 10 y ago mobilephones, games and others was selled better quality and now every year we have downgrade quality but people buy like crazy. This is with politicans, low quality films from hollywood… there is to much stupid sheeps, who always generate profits. For many many years even some content creators called „ no buy preorder” and what? People buy even more.
Instead of tomb king dlc they make a whole tomb kings game with all the cool stripped out
>First video since becoming a affiliated CC
>Makes a video criticising the new upcoming title
Real smooth Blake, real smooth 😂
(The criticism is valid before anyone says anything, companies nowadays don't understand that most criticism comes from a place of love and support because we want the game to be at its best form and achieve as much success as possible)
Whoopsie. 😂
Spot on, it's all love. No company makes games close to CA's formula, I just really want to guide them towards the light.
Lovely comment as always Herr General. Appreciate you 🫶
It’s good criticism ngl better than the other vids that just be hating.
Another big thing is there's a Warhammer 3 DLC coming very soon and a lot of people are real unhappy that Pharoah is getting all the news instead of the DLC
war hammer is garbage
@@dolamrothknightI disagree with you, why do you not like it? I am curious to know.
Explain your reasoning
@@thomasfrender4592as a fan that joined during the historical era I can understand his distaste, the land battles in WH is practically moba gameplay , and armies are barely armies anymore because of aoe spells and shit. The cohesion is gone. Just a clash of two blobs.
@@collencal4662 I'm also a historical fan but I think it's unfair to trash on warhammer games like that, it's the developers that are bad afterall, not the game. Sure warhammer games have a lot of magic and stuff, but that's meant to add another feeling and depth into the tactical part of the game, and about the blob, I played many historical games like shogun 2, rome 2, atilla, to name a few and all the AI armies are very similar and especially in shogun 2 the battles just turn into blob fests with samurais mindlessly charging and routing within 5 minutes
For CA’s filler game content I’d honestly be happier for more remastered games, I wouldn’t hate being charged $30 for a spiffed up Med2
Haha great comment. I agree.
Same here, I actually wouldn't mind even a remaster of one of their later games. Imagine if Rome 2 + Attila were merged together into one game with a nicely optimized 64-bit engine (like ToB)? Imagine the variantmeshdefinition and tile_map systems making their way into Empire/Napoleon?
I wish the remastered games would rework some of the old UIs, it's where they show their age more than anything else for me.
@@wba6787 Rome remastered had updated UI and it was terrible
I don't think having few cultures is in and of itself bad. Shogun 2 had only one culture and it did fine (I understand that weeaboos exist, but they can't have been the only people playing).
The melee combat has peaked in Medieval 2 and they don't want to admit it.
Edit: I would go so far as to say that Total War peaked with Medieval 2.
Also, I don't understand why do they keep using the Province/Region mechanic introduced in Rome 2 in all games. I thought it was going to be something used only in Rome 2 and Attila as it made sense since Romans organized their provinces in such a way.
Medieval 2 was such a great game.
Play Shogun 2. It is really great. It isn't the newest game, but it still compete, because it has the biggest inventions. There was nothing like that befor. It is simple but beautiful.
And yes. I think also like you. I expected more changes between the games. But i guess, they are going to get used to change less in there games.
Yeah, I don't like Shogun for that exact reason. For each their own I guess but you have to admit that it limits replayability. I agree for Medieval 2, even if I think Warhammer II was also really good.
The assassination cutscenes though were gold (especially those where the assassin failed), I would really like them to reappear.
@@azarshadakumuktir4551
Well. As you said. Everyone like what they want. Less replayability? It is my most played Total War game of all time in my library. 🤭👍 Not even all Warhammer Titels come together of the same amount of time.
@@abbald shogun 2 is good but it was the start of the slow decay of features.
Get Total War: Pharaoh or Tomb Kings at 1/3rd the price, difficult choice.
We do not serve!
SETTRA DOES NOT SERVE
The moment I saw the HUD where its just troy's but with a reskin I knew that it's the right decision not to get it
I mean it's not even a full reskin, they're using the exact same elements from Troys :')
They're strikingly similar, that's for sure.
Yup and fanboys attacked me on day 1 when I said that...
I think the biggest problem is the pharoah isnt riding a dragon casting fireballs
I must've left that part out.
A true shame indeed
That is accurate
Basically tw sucks without the fantasy elements 😂
@@fluffyisyermom7631 Modern TW specifically. Old stuff had heart.
I'm a huge bronze age fan, studying archaeology to get into studying it. I genuinely like Troy (even the original truth behind concept) a lot, so Pharoah being similar isnt a turnoff for me.
I hope chariot combat is greatly improved in the game. Given every faction will be using them, they really have to get them right.
I would appreciate having more than just the Egyptians, Hittites, and Canaan as starting factions. A full bronze-age setting spanning from Mycenae to Gutia would be amazing and the Rome 2 bronze age mod is probably going to be exactly what I want. I do think, however, having Mespotamia excluded will allow for factions like Assyria to appear like Medieval 2's Timurids and Mongols. It'd be very on-cue for Assyria to show up that way, imo.
I fully agree that cosmetics and microtransactions suck. I won't be preording because of that. I'll probably wait until steam sales and buy Old World instead first.
Overall, I'm pretty hopeful for the game since its right up my alley and with my interests, but I am wary about it. I would hate for it to fail and then CA completely abandoning my favorite time period. I don't want to see more sequals, I would love for more games to show more regions of the world and to explore those cultures rather than just what we've already seen.
Great comment and a good read. Glad you're hopeful for it, I'm hoping I'm incorrect in my prediction.
The lack of cultures makes it very underwhelming for me. Are we going to be fighting the same 3 faction units all game?
I think a bronze age setting with Mesopotamia being off map would really be underwhelming. I really hope they are planning to implement it later, the issue is that if that is their plan its probably because they want to cut costs at launch, which will probably mean the foundation of the game will be bad. So yeah, I'm not hopefull. If they reprice the game to 30 euros or so it could still be worth it but not with the current price tag. Also I will be sad if they forget to add Elam.
I think it’s fair criticism and I think part of the responsibility of being an affiliate it delivering fair criticism, so it’s good to see you’ve got integrity. Let’s hope CA take the feedback and deliver an excellent game.
Thank you so much man, that’s exactly my intention.
You hit the mark on every concern I have with the game.
It seems like this game is shaping up to be a complete disaster, which is such a shame cause the time period is very interesting and I think the campaign side of things will be great. But if the battles are a slog and the sieges are well.... like the sieges from the WH3, I wouldn't want to buy Pharoah without question.
At least we still have 4 years of WH3 content coming up so...yay?
I have very little hope for this game. I wasn't very interested from the get go, but I just think it's doomed.
You and I have 4 years of good, but somewhat buggy times ahead.
Huzzah
@@forrestmcgee7631 agreed.
@@forrestmcgee7631 Oh god your right
Based on what I've seen of total or wqr pharaoh, it does seem to be a reskin of the compromise version of Troy, except without the mythological units to give some hint of there being a fantastical element.
Plus, troy may have had two cultural groups at launch, but each faction has different specialisations, and plays very differently, with few mechanics re-used across factions (the only one being Paris and Hector's simultaneous race to confederate each other and the city of Troy).
You had eight distinctive factions that worked like different cultures, because each city-state was its own culture.
um bruh troy is dog shit no mater how u present it. its still shit
I would personally argue if the Deep Dive video is to be believed, that this will also be the case for Total War: Pharaoh I'd say. They speak at length about the unique units and different styles of play the 4 Egyptian factions have, Seti with his large masses of weaker units backed by undisciplined elites, Amun-Mes with mercenaries and his Kushite/Nubian soldiers, etc.
The main problem seems to be that they further more put in the troy battels without unit mass... So not troy2.0 but chariot war the reskin...
I heard a rumor that they will plan to combine Troy and Pharoah in 1 mega campaign, like Immortal Empires for Warhammer.
I heard that too, but whats the cost of entry? 3x€60? No thank you.
So theyre gonna combine one boring game with another one to make a mega boring map and game, yawn.
That could be the reason for the similar style. But more likely it is, because it is the same studio.
And to the answers. Yes 3*60 sounds unattractive for us, but because Troy is old, you get it for an easy discount. And i think, it is still better than to introduce the same factions in two DLC which cost together more.
And maybe both games are boring. But at least it sounds like a solution to combine it to have more opportunities.
@@abbald Seeing the level of detail on the Greece Map and the emptyness of the Pharaoh map I really don't think that will be feasible. Just look at the Sinai and Canaan that are shown in the gameplay, those regions alone are the size of Troy's map and yet they only have something like 8 settlements in them.
@@azarshadakumuktir4551
Ah. Ok. Good point. Didn't see that.
A big problem with cosmetic DLC is the possibility that CA would then be require to ban all cosmetic mods, or just not support modding at all which would result in a much worse product. The modding community is responsible for fixing so many issues with the game before CA can actually get around to it, and they are also responsible for massive quality of life improvements added to the games that are sometimes even adopted later by CA.
I don't think that's a requirement that's a must at all. Paradox games sell cosmetic DLCs and allow modding to great extents, including cosmetic mods. Even the memed horse-armor DLC of Skyrim has super extensive cosmetic mods.
Seems strange to expect that to invariably lead to banning/not supporting mods.
@@mattgopack7395 If CA offers paid cosmetic DLC but the modders can make the same or better cosmetic mods for free, what would be the incentive for the player to buy cosmetic DLC from CA?
@@colbunkmust CA's cosmetic mods might be better quality, and there's a benefit to having it from the company (theoretically they'd need to make sure it works when there's updates, modders might abandon it, etc).
Also a lot of players don't use mods, so DLC would appeal to them.
I don't buy cosmetic DLC with real money, but it's the type of DLC I think can be the least problematic. Lets people that like the art/have the cash buy it, and offset the costs for everyone else.
@@mattgopack7395 Your first paragraph doesn't really work beyond the theoretical, and it is rare that the mods I've used in TW have had serious issues between updates; CA's core gameplay on the other hand is often the opposite... every patch we get comes with new bugs while the stuff the community wants fixed gets ignored.
Also, in regards to modders abandoning support, did you forget about "Three Kingdoms"? CA dropped supporting that game at the first sign of waning interest.
Just because cosmetic DLC is the least predatory form of bad content doesn't mean it's something we should praise especially in a mostly single-player game where effort could be spent actually making content that enhances the things we want out of the game like variety, balancing and play testing. It also screams of bad faith to make day one DLC that is such a pure cash grab.
@@colbunkmust @colbunkmust both of our replies only work in the theoretical - CA hasn't released any cosmetic DLC yet, so there's no way to know for sure how they'll handle it.
You're essentially taking the most negative possibility and using that as the default assumption of how it'll go, which isn't an issue - but also is quite theoretical as well
Warrior of sparta have said Total War: Pharaoh would not have family tree and main characters could not die unless you killed their faction....... This was one the major points that make old total wars game historical for me. This kills the replay value as well. What a another youtuber have said and I agree with him, reskinning is not a bad thing, it when you reskin all bad parts that come with it.
Yeah, why they scrapped the randomness of family members and family trees is beyond me.
@@BlakesTakes420 After thinking it over, I believe the faction leader have skill trees that no another general unit you recuit has. Having your faction leader die will destroy the faction balance on the campagin map. So faction leader are still consider legendary lords in Total War: Pharaoh just with bodygurad units. Warhammer game design still bleeds over into other games
@@amvhate which just doesn't work in a historical setting.
I loved the risk of bringing your faction leader to a battle in previous total war games.
@@BlakesTakes420 I like the idea of having a game set during the late bronze age + collapse, but why did they choose to do so within such a short time frame (1205-1195)? It's so nuts. They should have taken a grander focus on this time period, spanning multiple generations of characters (i.e. controlling a dynasty of a faction rather than a single individual who never dies), a slightly wider landmass (at least include the Aegean and Mesopotamia). Even ToB managed to do this part better, and it was a Saga game also. The problem is just the way these games are being designed now - after 3K and WH, CA feel like roleplay / immersion / storytelling is improved if you focus on only a handful of permanent characters, but I'm now starting to feel like the opposite may be true. They need to try and take a grander focus again. Fair enough if you want to make starting characters have a little bit of refinement, but don't go so far and to make them unkillable. One of the core aspects of the game was its dynamic replayability, and static characters harm that dynamic.
@@BenPrattJin I like the idea, but the scope just appears so narrow on this game.i hope I'm wrong, but I just can't see it having much replay ability
I really wish they would have made another empire/Napoleon or a Medieval game or hell even another rome game would of got me more hyped
I reckon we won't see those titles for 2 or so years 🤮
A new napoleon total war would be great
I will always continue to howl into the void for a TW World War 1 game I think it could really be pulled off
it would be cool, but difficult to do, Trench warfare wasn't notorious for being exciting haha
Victoria total war would be incredible
@BlakesTakes420 tons of excitement ask the men at Verdun! 😃
For me anyway, I think the feeling of is where is my Empire or Medieval 3 is always on my mind, but I am also aware the teams that made those games are no longer there, the times have shifted and even if we did get those titles, they would be absolutely stripped bare in preparation for the onslaught of DLC - put it this way, the fact for years we have had to pay for fucking blood in a game literally called TOTAL WAR is evidence enough of how this trend of CA absolutely abusing the loyalty of its customers through locking a bog standard feature behind a paywall, its time to admit that even if we got those beloved titles it would ultimately be 4-5 years after modders have worked on it that we would have a decent entry
A great take, and also, I fear, a sad reality.
A good read and I thank you for it.
I wonder how hard it would be to just code chariots to drive thru enemy and charge back in, without player control. Cavalry should have been coded similarly, you click once cavalry charges in, retreates after the charge bonus is gone and charge back in again.
or just have units put down traps or a simple sharp stick to stop the chariots
Thats what called micro managing skills.
I feel like that would have the same issues as skirmishing mode for Missile units where you feel like you lose control over units
@@robfus I agree but the issue is that collisions with chariots aren't really well made, they should be able to use the momentum to drive through enemies, the issue is they behave like cavalry and get stuck even in militia which means they either need a ton of helath (like in the historical games) and become OP or don't have any and die instantly like in Warhammer.
Tbh, I’m legit excited for this game. The bronze age, especially Egypt, is my jam! And as far as I’m concerned, Troy absolutely slapped so more of it is good in my books!
The lack of cultures and the more in-depth focus on a particular landmass also doesn’t bother me as I’ve never heard many complaints about Shogun, which also had the above. I don’t necessarily agree that bigger with as many factions as possible is inherently better, and quite frankly I always found the base game of Medieval 2 quite lacking because of that lack of focus. That game did the HRE dirty imho. I just played the Kingdoms expansions.
I do hope they follow through with their promise to give the chariots justice. Because a bronze age wargame without chariots is no bronze age game at all
No that's fair enough and I definitely agree with HRE being done dirty in Medieval. WHERE ARE MY DISMOUNTED ZWEIHANDER WIELDING GOTHIC KNIGHTS, CA!?
My problem is that, there is just so few factions and diversity in the rosters I've seen so far, I just can't wrap my head around where the value is.
I do truly hope I'm wrong and CA pulls it out of the bag - and I'm happy that there are folks excited for the product, if you get it and enjoy it - that's all that matters. Don't let my ramblings, in any way, diminish your hype.
I just think the price is crazy high for such a sparse offering, coupled with CA dancing with horrible business practices like cosmetic DLC.
People forget that this isn't the main CA's team it's made by a sister team who made Troy, so yes, there will be similarities and honestly Troy did not deserve the treatment it received and so far it looks good and in my opinion looks far better than release Rome 2 Atilla un modded honestly People can never try anything new without the consumer butchering them unfairly
Release Rome 2 was a disaster, so you're not setting a high bar there.
I just think that for the price tag, we should be expecting a lot more.
Troy received what it deserved.
I agree, Troy wasn't a disaster, but it wasn't worth its price and lacks content, negative reviews were waranted even if I agree that the bashing was really excessive.
@owenlindkvist5355 no it really didn't but I respect your opinion it was made by a smaller inexperienced team 🤷
@azarshadakumuktir4551 I can get behind that, but they did accept those issues and tried to deliver afterward.
Its so sad that so little has moved forward in the franchise in the past 15 years.
In fact, I'd argue their historical titles have regressed. less unit variety, no naval battles, smaller geographic scope.
I hope I'm wrong, but I can't see this game succeeding.
Only CA would decide to start offering cosmetic microtransactiosn and remove in-game chat from their games at around the same time.
Everything about the new game so far has seemed pretty lackluster and that's not a good sign IMO
Your point about the armor sets is so true considering how WH3's bugs have persisted for 4+ years taking time to produce cosmetics seems wrong
I hope it's just a phase...
I dislike the fact that I hate this game. The team at Sofia is genuinely making an effort, but they seem to lack both adequate support and funding. Starting a Bronze Age game without Mesopotamia is something I find unforgivable, though.
Nothing about this says effort tbh... + seems like a simple reskin of their other games for greed
I just recently bought Troy, after years and years, and i'd recommend it. It's actually pretty good. It has certain issues that are kinda nagging at first, but they quite quickly fade, and it becomes a very enjoyable experience. The mythological mode is definitely the best way to play, though. Troy does not have great unit variation, and the mythological additions keeps it from becoming dull.
But yea, definitely give it a try. I'm surprised with how much i've ended up liking it.
Maybe the fact that theyre making pharaoh instead of empire 2/ medieval 3
1. Not interested in the subject matter.
2. Not interested in only 3 factions.
Would much rather have seen one of the classics updated with the engine, graphics and multiplayer from WH3.
From an engine perspective the only change would be to no longer allow campaign single entity agents to join an army. The armies would be command by a command unit. The code is already there for command units (garrison defense when no army with a leader is present.) So we would revert to Shogun II like commanders who are imbedded with their elite guard.
Obviously also not implementing magic and other fantasy elements into a historical setting.
It's a pretty easy win for CA as it'll be most their campaign designers and art team having to do the heavy lifting. Leaving their engine team a few years of time to start working on the next big engine upgrade.
Maybe in 5 or so years we can see a treatment of the Trolloc wars from CA. Lots of good fantasy content there with a large number of cultures and factions.
Looking forward to your new lawn care tools video on your other channel, Blakes Rakes.
a bad joke, but well executed.
hot take as always, my man.
Thank you sir🫶
I'll be that guy, but I just want CA to concentrate on a 40k Total War game. I'd go crazy if they ever reveal it.
It would be wild
Excellent analysis....thanks pal...
You're most welcome!
For Saga games, 15-20 bucks is tops. Above that is way to pricey from what they offer.
IMO it is a saga game without the saga title. Im pretty sure the main developers are making a new china game(isint that what they said when they dropped 3 kingdoms?) Which has a few timelines they could use for some amazing culture and unit type clashes. Specifically thinking the early Yuan dynasty who were fighting their mongol brethern, song chinese, the koreans and japanese.
So im treating this as a SAGA(maybe they will merge it with troy) while waiting the real historical title.
Yeah i'm not to interested in Pharaoh as well, i'm just getting into all of there other titles from Empire to Three Kingdoms from the laetest sale and i'm enjoying them so far. I also didn't pick up Attila bc I did not know much about it.
Patient gamer
Blake plays so we don't have to
can you do a "why you suck with the chaos dwarves", bought the DLC recently and have been really struggling, and your videos on khorne and skarsnik helped.
I sure can friend.
@@BlakesTakes420 ❤️
Pharoah only has three cultures, but they have three factions within each culture which is at least nine different dynastic routes. I am excited about Pharoah. Always wondered how those Egyptian gods influenced society back in those days. So I will definitely give Pharoah a go. But I will have to wait until a sale because I'm retired on a fixed income and $80 Canadian is impossible. Long time TW fan. Want to support the franchise. Hope Pharoah is a success.
I hope it's a success too, desperately need a win after the shadows of change debacle. I'll be giving it a review in the foreseeable future when embargo lifts, so stick around, sir.
I don't know if Total War Pharoah is salvageable or if it will be good, but only three factions is very concerning. Even Shogun 2 (my first TW game) had 10 factions to pick from at launch and all of them felt extremely different to play despite having the same cultural basis. They can definitely do much better and the very narrow focus of the game's overall scope makes it feel like just a small project that they had on the side like most of their Saga titles. This is in spite of the fact that I think the time period that they have chosen to portray is very interesting and is one that not many people have learned about. I am also very skeptical about cosmetic packs in most games in general.
Don't preorder is my rule of thumb. Let the game come out. Surely most of us have large backlogs of many great games to keep us busy including past TW games in that mix and we can all sit and wait for a good sale on the game itself. A good game will still be good when we get around to it. A bad game will trip and fail right out the gate and maybe have the devs apologize for failing like so many other studios have done this very year. Time will tell what this game will be. That said, it's not bad to be excited or hyped for a game, but we should be extremely cautious towards games like this.
The game has more than 3 factions - by Shogun 2's standards, it has 8. 4 Egyptians, 2 Hittites, 2 Canaanites - the 3 parts refers to the cultures.
The Egyptian ones are the only ones I think we've really seen, but they're at least as different from each other as the Shogun 2 ones from what I can tell.
@@mattgopack7395 Having four egyptian factions in the Bronze Age is weird. They could have made them into Hyksos (a mix of egyptian and canaanite flavour) and thebans (fully egyptian) but four factions will be an issue historically.
@@azarshadakumuktir4551 They're using historical characters for the variation, and one of the factions is essentially Nubia/Nubian theme.
The Hyksos were gone by the time period the game covers, and for a few centuries.
Doesn't seem particularly problematic historically if you actually look at the factions they chose & the way the game works - just that they're going to be relatively similar to each other unit wise (hence why they seem to be emphasizing local recruitment/regional unit types within Egypt)
@@mattgopack7395 I checked the factions. The idea is interesting, the issue is Rome 1 which was the last game I played which had this system was pretty bad at using it. It basically divides Egypt into competing factions. It could actually be done well if there is flavour added to seize power in Egypt and sideline opponents, but this would need some flavour (basically adding politics to Total War, a bit like what was done in Three Kingdoms).
Also I saw the game starts at the end of the Bronze Age, which is quite risky since the Game would need to simulate a credible threat from economic and political turmoil as well as outside invaders (something Attila tried and in part failed to do).
@@azarshadakumuktir4551 There's a way to become Pharaoh, which kicks off after the death of the initial one (and it's based on some sort of prestige aspect, so essentially the factions competing to become the recognized pharaoh). It's in one of the videos they put out for it. (I also believe that the Canaanite factions can choose to essentially stay independent or to enter one of the two empires to jump into those mechanics).
The Sea Peoples seem like they're the main threat they're including, though we've not really seen anything about the endgame yet.
My understanding was that Chariots were mostly used like Dragoons. Basically mounted infantry. Sure they can fight mounted but it’s mostly used to get moving, dismount, fight, and mount again when retreating/relocating.
Yes.
I've said before. I'm glad they're not releasing a medieval 3 if this is their new style of game creation. The older devs had a good thing going with the political system, family tree, battle mechanics, and overall art style. The games atleast had some element of realism to it. The physics of the individual units were fluid for the most part and you could notice the difference in how they fight based on their battle experience. Compare those games say Rome 2 or Attila to Troy. The games are practically polar opposites and personally i don't see this game making the cut with the historical die hards.
The problem with pharaoh from my stand point, it’s not the ME3TW or Empire 2 that I have seen the community dream about and screamed out for, for years.
It seems to me they are just using a Troy template to murder what might of been a great time period for a total war game in the future.
I am a warhammer nerd and a huge military history buff and I want to see a proper title for the history side of me! I personally want ME3TW not a fast cash grab game, if they insist on it tho then I prefer they screw this up rather than a proper title like I mentioned already
Love this, great comment
@@BlakesTakes420ty sir ❤
I'll start by saying that I don't have an issue with game devs reusing assets, that practice happens A LOT, and you may not even notice it, because it saves massive amounts of time and saves money. However, on that note reusing a bunch of base assets and then sticking a price tag like 60 bucks on it and not offering a lot in conjunction is not ok.
I'm not impressed by this game in the slightest, I think it's a waste of time considering their flagship title of Total War Warhammer 3 is currently floundering and is in desperate need of repairs. And I use the term repairs instead of patches because patching TWH3 at this point is like putting a bandaid on a hull leak caused by colliding with a reef. It needs some serious work, and diverting people and resources away from your flagship series to work on a game that very few people care about is foolish in the highest degree.
agree with all of your points. Thank you for your comment sir.
This is just the obligatory yearly game, sadly. Not much love, just "we need it for the quarterly report" type of game. I'm ten times more exited for the Tzeench DLC.
Me too. Seems more like a check box than a game that exists to entertain.
I love Egyptian history and yet I have 0 interest in this. My gripe is that they need to have the TW:W3 community singing their praises before shifting all their efforts elsewhere. The game has SO much potential, yet they're busy trying to sell me another half finished game? No thanks. I genuinely like what they've done the last 6 months with W3, and they need to keep pushing their efforts there or I won't be buying any other titles from them.
Point 2: The Chariots also move (like they did in Rome I) and look like shit (elongated). Also strongly agree with the limited 3 cultures
All the newer games have vibes of a Rome II reskin which gives me immediate PTSD from that botched release.
I really can't stand the visuals and feel of that engine e.g. seeing the soldiers "jumping" from the siege towers onto the wall. It is the same 10y/o cheap animation.
TotalWar became the new Stronghold and CA the new Firefly Studios. Really sad to see British studios become victims of their own success.
Sadly I can't disagree with this.
I hoping that in the next flagship historical game we'll see improvements, but for now, this is all we've got.
Three Kingdoms and Warhammer were the best things they have come out with since medieval 2
It's the same everywhere, game systems that people have sweated blood over to create are now nothing but butchered for parts to be sold. Nobody actually creates anything meaningfull anymore, and nobody who matters in this realizes that it will get them nowhere.
The problem with Total War Pharoah is that we don't have Total War:40k, Total War:Middle Earth and Medieval 3
It feels like CA has no business sense. I seem to remember that a big part of capitalism is that your customers like you and your product, so you treat them well and make good products. Just look at Deep Rock Galactic, it is such an immensely beloved game that they need only release a few cosmetic DLC packs a year and their business is perfectly healthy. Sure, it doesn't fund parasitic shareholders or the 12th Mercedes for each board member, but at some point a business has to stop growing and must stabilize, otherwise it loses focus of why it exists in the first place and becomes the economic equivalent of a violently vampiric, cancerous growth. Like EA.
Strong comment, couldn't agree more.
One of the many reasons that chariots are so fucking terrible is that as soon as you give them an attack order they just slam into the unit and sit there until you move them again. There is absolutely nothing intuitive or user-friendly about CAs chariots, they just always suck ass.
I strongly agree
It's just a really weird choice in terms of the scope and the setting first and foremost. It's an undeniably interesting period, but whether that translates to a Total War game where a lack of unit, faction and tactical diversity can be a bit problematic and limiting is questionable.
Like all of their games at this stage, it'll definitely be a "I'll forget about this and see what people think after a year or so" but I'm not entirely pessimistic as to the final final product (however many months after release that materializes). I didn't care for Troy particularly, but Sofia have definitely been getting better at this with time and I do think they're fully capable of surprising people with a solid experience. I just wish there was any real pressure on CA's monopoly to push them to really get ambitious with the series again. Given the next big "historical" title seems to just be a 3K sequel it seems like it'll be a long time before we get any true new entry in the series.
I unfortunately have never played a CA Game outside of the Total War Warhammer series so i have a clear bias, but i do love Egyptian History, so this game caught my eye but between yours and Zerkovich's videos about it has given me pause.
I hear some people say the next big Total war will be 40k what do you think about that?
I'd love to see it. But I imagine it'd be unlikely.
only two ive never got was three kingdoms and troy i shall be adding this one also to my list of not wanting
As someone who started playing total war with medieval 2 back in the day i think its hayday was shogun 2 as its still a game i can go back and play and easily enjoy myself. The warhammer games have been alright with a lot of factions and different playstyles that make it interesting (plus radious mod for more variety) but the games like Rome 2, Britannia, Troy and the three kingdoms have just been lacklustre for their own reasons in my books and i think CA needs to actually listen to the community as to what they want. I mean i didn't hear the community screaming for a game about egypt/pharaohs but i guess at this point they're running out of ideas as what they should do next without having to go back to an old ip.
LACKLUSTRE, a perfect summation. Nowhere near the magic of the old games.
Well, I Personally use the phrase "the only good Rome 2 is a Rome 2 with mods." I guess that phrase will have to be used for Pharaoh just as it is used for Troy..
My main reason for not wanting to play this is the setting. I'm not interested in Egypt. I want med 3.
In maybe 4 years time 😭
@@BlakesTakes420 I can dream lol
Naval battles being removed should have been our first red flag. They weren't perfect but an entire battle mode being removed is a big deal. It was a sign that instead of innovating, they were going to simplify, dumb down, and cut content.
I'd say narrowing their focus of cultures to three, at launch, doesn't help anything. Sure, you have multiple factions per the three cultures, but there are quite a few that they're leaving out of the Bronze Age Collapse.
I've been pining for a Bronze Age Collapse game since the mid-2000's, so I'm hoping they do it well.
I'd be fine with Atilla Total War graphics, if they'd just make a quality game.
I feel like a total war game would better emulate the late bronze age than the collapse. With Attila we really saw how difficult it was to make a fun Total War game where your empire is supposed to grow weaker and not stronger.
bravo! nailed it
Thank you!
@Blakes Takes
Re: Pharoh
I would like to stay cautiously optimistic as they may have 'cool stuff' and features that we don't know about yet and it may be a solid game vis-a-vis performance, optimization etc etc.
Based on what I have seen it does look gorgeous from a graphics and aesthetics perspective.
No one has actually played a full campaign yet (it's still a WIP after all) with different factions, yeh some pre-release versions have been given to a couple of youtubers to try out but these youtubers will have their biases etc so I wouldn't put too much stock in their opinion as of yet.
Yes, CA does have a history of shady business practice, milking people for money and outright ripping people off so I NEVER give them full price for any game.
I also wait for their new releases to be out for months, sometimes even a year or two and then get a game for a bargain price on steam.
I did this with WH3 and got the game for an absolute bargain and I am glad I waited.
Also this gives time to assess it and wait for the inevitable bugs to be patched and perhaps released DLC that is good and worth a couple of quid. (never full price as mentioned above)
Remember, you don't have to get the game on release at full price, be patient and wait for a Steam weekend/summer sale because that's what I do.
Pharoh may be fantasitc but my reservations will be that a large chunk of the game will be behind paywalls like they did with Attila...
Attila the base game for me was boring and empty.
The campaign was mostly a snore fest, and with very few factions of which there were two of each 'culture' and copy and pastes of each other it was shameless and borderline outrageous that you had to get pretty much every DLC to flesh out the game.
Plus pretty much most battles were city battles which added to the repetitive tedium.
I did eventually get all the DLC but for very, very cheap prices and the game was better for it.
I mod most of my TW games and I do so with Attila so it does have replayability for me but still, the full priced base-game was vapid, empty and un-engaging for me.
DLC's and mods made it an actual playable game.
Let's not talk about the debacle that was Rome 2 ;-)
Yes, if they release Pharoh with 3 cultures and only 6 factions or something then I won't be going anwhere near it as it will be just another rip off.
A full-priced game ,especially at £60+ should have a massive plethora of factions with identifiable character unique to them as well as some excellent mechanics to really give flavour to them.
It doesn't have to be like Warhammer where pretty much every faction has unique and unique (ish) mechanics and styles but it has to have something that isn't just an attempt to be just like the rest but pretending to be different.
We'll see.
Oh yeh regarding Troy...
Troy is actually a very solid game.
Looking gorgeous both in battle and the campaign map with the Greek aesthetics it is quite an underrated game.
It's very stable and well optimised, the resource-based economy is good and works very well and the overall feel of the game is 'historic' and well-flavoured with the Illyad-based theme.
You don't have to play it as a fantasy game as you have 3 options to play it as: 'Historical', Semi-Mythic and full on fantasy.
It is enjoyable and fun to play.
I understand your principle of not playing it because of a bad decision to make it 'exclusive' as I will never give full price to CA for any game becuase of the Rome 2 debacle, rip-offs, lies and all so I can relate but.....
If you see Troy for a very low, bargain price on Steam give it a go.
I did and it was worth the £6 or whatever it was and I have no regrets.
Go on, join in with Achilles and his temper tantrums or be the awesome Hector and kick Agamemnon back across the Agean.. it's what legends are made about.
;-)
'Si vis pacem para bellum'.
I wrote a long comment for this but CZcams glitched and it deleted.
Basically, I hope I'm wrong but I just can't see the value-add for this game in comparison to older titles. I fear this game will get buried under heavy-hitters like Starfield and Baldur's Gate.
@@BlakesTakes420
Aye, fair enough.
We'll see what happens, hopefully we're nicely surpirsed.
;-)
The worst part of the cosmetic DLC's is what affect will that have on Reskin Mods or mods in general.
A valid concern. Mods will compete with revenue streams, so something to watch for unfortunately.
For me i hope of the following of Future Historical Total War
I would be open minded about a Greater historical Title split into 3 parts like Warhammer
Medieval 3
Focus on Western, Southern, Northern and Eastern Europe inclouding North Africa and Arabia
Clashing the European Mights with Vikings, Pagan Slavs, Moors and Saracens in the Crusades.
Medieval 3 - The Great Kahn
Adding Central and East Asia to the Globe focusing on Mongolia and China maybe also inclouding Japan, Korea and Southeast Asia like the Burmese. Setting the Rise of the Mongols
Medieval 3 - Age of the Conquerors
focusing on the Americas and India + South and Western Africa with some Western African Kingdoms like the Malian Kingdom for example, the Indian Sultanates and Americans like Inca, Aztecs, Mayans and all the others.
I would love it if Melee Units will get back a little bit more of a punch feeling. Combat in Medieval II was far more Brutal and violent than in all titles after it, you could whipe whole Units with a Cavalry charge, well and obliterate a Cavalry Unit with Pikes within seconds. I miss this feeling of Brutal Combat.
afther looking more on pharao and video like this. i was so eager . now i think i will keep to MODS and bannerlord 2
Bannerlord is a spicy game tbf
if creative assembly made a complete rehaul of warhammer 3 with a new dlc and a few new factions and lords. made the game perfect. id gladly spend my money on it. why are they coming out with games that fall short of their previous games. they could redo medieval, or overhaul warhammer 3. id buy that. LOTR total war would be amazing.
I'm in the cautiously optimistic branch, but a strong, strong emphasis on the caution. I don't like the idea of cosmetic DLC at all, I am concerned that it will be quite samey with a lack of diverse cultures. But at the same time, a lot of Troy was good. I actually really *like* the saga approach of zooming on on a location so you don't finish the entire reconquista in 4 territories by turn 10. The chariots, and especially 'chariots are the best unit, but they have weaknesses you can exploit' thing? I'm very wary of that. But there's good things going on here too. And subjectively, I love the time period, lots of people don't really give a hoot, that's fine. I can't argue with your take or your pessimism, it's all valid critique, but I'm still hopeful for a game I'll personally at least finish a few times. As far as the price goes, I really don't know how I feel. Making a game is a big effort even - or especially - for a smaller studio (not CA as a whole of course, but Sofia), but I am very poor. I'd like a world where I feel confident they're being paid the right wage for their time and a world with games I can afford. I'm not knowledgeable enough to solve that one, so, I'm just gonna make like marge and hmmmmmmmmmmm. Thanks for the video, it was very thoughtful.
I still think leaving out Mesopotamia was a mistake. Only having Egypt and the Hittites will probably make the game quite simplistic (since there is only one major opponent) without the need for long term balance.
There is much content from novel and folk story that CA can take for next big project than just take a bit of story and making it next TW name.
we want shogun 3 :(
the main issue is these guys are still alive and not awesome cool mummies.
😂 That would be cool.
I'll day what i said on the feelings towards the game post ; there seems to be not much for a high price, and I don't want to buy a game that will need multiple dlcs to be somewhat complete, even more on release where it will probably have issues like many modern games. So it will most probably be a skip for me, at least until it's cheaper/actually has content worth the price.
When warhammer 3 concludes, I will just keep playing warhammer 3.
Yeah, I could see myself playing Warhammer 3 basically for decades.
the problems are fundamental and can't be fixed without a new engine, at least for the battles.
I've played their battle demo at gamescom this year and can confirm, chariots still broken
I wasn't holding my breath. maybe next historical release eh?
problem is its troy 2.0 and no one wants that GARBAGE
btw Tw: ToB wasn't the first saga game. It was fall of the samurai.
If you don't belive me look it up on steam.
That was only because TW rebranded it as such. The game was rebranded and released as a separate product Total War Saga: Fall of the Samurai on August 13, 2019.
I don't count it as a saga game because of that.
What they didn't do is massively increase the map sizes, so that you can use chariots... When are they going to understand
Yeah, I'm certainly included in the 'meh' category as that was literally my reaction when I first learned and saw the trailer for it.
Personally, I don't even want a Medieval 3. Not because I hated it, Medieval 2 is still to this day my favourite TW. I just reckon at this point if they make a Medieval 3, They'll eff it up like Rome 2 did and while Rome 2 was EVENTUALLY fixed and made better, I don't fancy waiting several years for a fix where I'm already bitter over it. If they are ever going to re-approach it, I just want a remaster or even a remake like they did with Rome 1. Change nothing! Just updated looks and I'll be happy.
While I have enjoyed some of the newer titles like Three Kingdoms and Warhammer 3. I'm still not really a fan of how they do things as a whole in this current age. I understand why the company do it though. So its why I'm not after a Medi 3, because they'll change everything what made Medi 2 so good and replace it with paywalls and etc. Not interested.
agreed. first impressions are important and all first impressions here seem to be very poor
The biggest problem is NOBODY WANTED IT and I really have no idea how anyone at CA thought this would be a good idea. I know they have separate teams for their projects but this is just wasting resources that could be used to make Medieval 3 a much better game at launch and much faster and it would still get them more money than this waste of everyone's time...
God bless fitgirl
Nice.
I feel like the whole question of this being a saga game is a bit overblown for most aspects of the gameplay safe for the number of factions at launch and what we saw of the map size. A very detailed and large map of the Middle East would have totally been possible but what we have here is really an issue. Additionally having a faction named the "canaanites" screams Rome 1 levels of historical accuracy to me. If you have three factions and one of the three didn't exist as a united state at the time it really makes you wonder about what flavour there really is to the game. Also considering the time period, not including Assyria, Babylon and Elam and focusing the map solely on the western Middle East is a huge oversight. One that has nearly necessarily been driven by the will to cut development costs. So yeah, the game could really have been good but three factions makes me think the game will be rushed and empty.
I think you maybe confusing factions and cultures. There's 3 cultures but 8 (I think) factions.
@@BlakesTakes420 True, yet the distinction also isn't really clear since there are 4 factions for Egypt (probably working in a similar way to warlords in Three Kingdoms). And two for the Hittite Empire. The issue is that the whole working of the game seems to be around the rivalry between those two empires which is a bit shallow. It could be remedied by a good implementation of economic difficulties and sea people invasions but that remains to be seen, no total war game managed to completely nail crises untill now (I'm mostly thinking about how this turned out in Attila or Warhammer I).
@@azarshadakumuktir4551 I really liked how they did the Mongols Medieval 2. Felt very challenging to deal with back in the day.
I was firmly disinterested but having watched your video and having all of the issues or just lack of content summarized with the price I have moved to unimpressed. It does not seem like it will be worth it.
first point: "is it a saga game?
- Why would it be a saga game?
- Why is a saga game bad?
- What about pre-Saga concepts that also resemble Saga, with less scope, but are good (like Shogun 2)?
- Why is a "continental present of the traditional tw" better?
The second point, "the trouble with chariots", is better than your point 1, but it has a problem:
- Why is it a problem that you can steamroll with chariots in Troy, when this simply resembles single entity units of WH (which is a game I think you like)?
Third point: "Is Pharaoh a Troy reskin?
- Why is a "reskin" bad (see Napoleon, which many people praise)? I think the correct answer here is intend, but no one tries to mention it.
- The whole point is not really elaborated and just based on "feelings".
Fourth point: "the lack of cultures":
- why is having less cultures worse than having more cultures?
- Shogun 2 is based on 1 culture, but is considered one of the best TW games.
- Medieval 2 essentially has 3 big culture groups, catholic/orthodox/muslim and it is regarded to be one of the best TW games.
Fifth point "cosmetic DLC":
I agree
6th point "pricing":
I agree
Okay, i totally agree with the fourth point. The lack of culture doesn't make a game sucks. Like you said shogun 2 was build upon 1 culture, yet people said it was the best in the franchise. I think what matter most is gameplay, i don't give a single f@#$ about lack of culture, reskin, and all of that s@#$*. About pricing, okay that was stupid, the dlc cosmetic shit too. But once again i will repeat my statement here, GAMEPLAY MATTERS. If the gameplay sucks then why would i play that game? To just look at it? This is why rome 2 failed in my opinion.
Can't address all of this comment due to time constraints. But what we can see from the shadows of change DLC ( and the recent public outcry) is we are paying more for less as a trend with CA.
After Warhammer 3 is concluded, it's time for 40k babyyy!
Let the good times roll.
I would mud-wrestle my own mother for an official LOTR: Total war though. I could die happy then.
@@BlakesTakes420 Hopefully no black Aragorn this time lmao
Not a game I have any interest in. In a larger, more all-encompassing "Ancient Total War" then Egypt would be at best fourth on my list of playthroughs after Romans, Alexandrians, and Britons (and maybe others). Yet that's the best this game offers, from a very small selection?
Well, let's get it over with. Let it happen, give it some time, then by the time Warhammer III is coming to an end maybe they'll be doing Empire II, or World Wars... or 40K. I'd be ten times as interested in any of those.
Ww2 total war would be insane.
The price is already not relevant for the product IMO. And even if they told me I could get it for 20 euro, I would still be hesitant due to the gameplay and marketing I have seen of it.
Saga games don't work for me. And I doubt they would make much profit from such titles anyways.
troy was free is the only reason that i played but pharo is just the most basic total war is just the bones atleast rome 2 has different culture and unit line the galic unit where lot diferent that the greek units pharon is just half naked men thats the "elite unit"
I dont think Empire 2 or Medieval 3 are too far off. 2 or 3 years tops. Competing with themselves is less of an issue. If i want to play a total war game with guns but good graphics, better QoL features, and better AI, I have limited options. If i want naval battles with guns? I go back to Fall of the Samurai. Some days I'll want magic to blast my enemies, others it will be 24 pounders. I hope CA realizes they can have more than one mainline game at once now.
I hope you're right.
Just play Shogun 2 with mods if you need a new experience.
Honestly rome 2 is my favorite, this looks and seems like a saga game. Going to wait and see how this one plays out before I buy.
This is the correct choice. Never pre-order.
I've pre-ordered Rome 2 and it proved to be laggy piece of s***, after that I ignored any info about Atilla but after release saw some videos and bought the game and it actually proved very good, but I had to wait some months or maybe a year to get pre-order dlc come on good sale. After Atilla Rome 2 looks even more ugly, interface and battle mechanics are just awful. Spend a lot of time on both though Rome 2 wasn't much fun still.
After playing 3k total war, diplomacy, quick deals... I can't get to oldet tw titles cuz I am more into campaign map play like CK games, not battles anymore.
Lack of culture is not a problem for me as a 3k and shogun 2 fan lol
fair play
I personally don`t care for the scenarion and timeline, if others do I hope it ends up being a good game. If only we could get Medieval 3 already or I would even be happy for another fantasy insipred Total War. Lord of the Rings would be a obvious one.
Greetings Mr. Blake, I must say for the most part I do wholly agree with your takes, except for your fourth problem. To boil it down I think the lack of distinct cultures is significantly made up for by each individual faction's mechanics. To put it simply I do not believe that only 3 cultures will hinder Total War: Pharaoh all that much as far as replayability is concerned, as, if the deep dive into egypt is to be believed, and that is the standard for the other two cultures, each of the individual factions will allow for quite a significant difference in how the game is played. Far as I can tell they are going with a 3 Kingdoms approach to cultures and such, given at launch 3 Kingdoms only had 2 cultures available (unless you bought the DLC), but each one of the base game warlords played distinctly enough from one another that you weren't just playing the same thing over and over again. While Warhammer 1's factions were surely unique, I personally think the loss of one in exchange for the same amount of starting factions, all of whom with vastly more depth on the campaign map than Warhammer 1's factions had is not the worst tradeoff. Besides, someone else in the comments spoke of how Troy may only have had 2 unique cultures, but each faction was unique enough that they felt wholly distinct from one another, this is what I expect Pharaoh to end up as, and as such I do not believe the lower amount of culture choices is that significant of a dounside.
I would especially disagree with you even bringing up Medieval 2 into the conversation, as I would argue Medieval 2 didn't have many distinct cultures either, especially not unique to the extent that they changed the way that most battles were fought, while yes every faction did have unique units, most every faction shared their early and late game units, Arquebusiers, Feudal Knights, the militias, most artillery, are all shared between at least the western Europeans if not every single faction. I'd argue the majority of the replayability in Medieval 2 came from the different starting locations rather than unique playstyles or faction mechanics, which is something Medieval 2 is sorely lacking in, but evidently Pharaoh is brimming with what with the court system and more I assume will be revealed.
Once again I wish to reiterate I wholly agree with the vast majority of this video, especially the price which in my eyes is absurd.
Great comment.
I remember the medieval factions feeling very diverse. Perhaps I am seeing them through rose-tinted spectacles!
@@BlakesTakes420 I do not believe that to be the case, the rose-tinted glasses, and I must admit I feel my words towards Medieval 2 might've been harsh, as certain unique units could significantly change up the way a battle was fought, like Hungary's horse archers or the Porto-Spanish javelins. I guess a better and more concise way of putting it would be that I felt a comparison between Pharaoh's cultures and Medieval 2's factions was unfair, and that Medieval 2's factions played more like the Warlords of Total War: 3 Kingdoms (my favorite of the modern roster), where while they shared units with the other Warlords, each one had special units that influenced your playstyle and encouraged focusing on a certain role in your army, Liu Chong's hybrid units meaning your front and back line were largely the same, Ma Teng and Gongsun Zan being the only ones to start with horse archers available, etc, while still being part of the larger Han culture.
Empire 2 please
wen empire, wen medieval
I just wish the recent total war games weren't the low effort, zero passion, boring wastes of time I know they are. Except the Warhammer series. CA is committing brand suicide no one is gonna greive for the multi-million dollar company that can't make a fucking game anymore.
What annoys me, is that they should just make an entire Bronze Age Total War game.
Timeframe (1250 BC - 1150 BC)
Factions:
1. Egypt
2. Hittites
3. Assyria
4. Babylon (Kassites)
5. Elam
6. Mycenae
7. Phoenicia
Late Game Crisis: Late Bronze Age Collapse (Famine, Uprisings, Sea Peoples, etc.)
Potential DLC
Rise of Akkad: Play as Sargon of Akkad and unify Mesopotamia under the Akkadian Empire.
Historical Battles:
1. Battle of Megiddo (1457 BC)
2. Battle of Kadesh (1274 BC)
3. Battle of the Delta (1175 BC)
There are probably (definitely) more historical battles from the Bronze Age but these were the ones I can remember off the top of my head.
if they make it one game, how could they chop it up into little DLCs and sell it to you for massively inflated prices, sir?
Sir, you're not thinking about the shareholders!
WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE SHAREHOLDERS.