Total War: Pharaoh's Struggle to Resonate with Many Historical Players
Vložit
- čas přidán 25. 07. 2023
- I’ve been thinking about Pharaoh this week and watching all of the gameplay videos, the leader showcases and Dev diaries. I’ve been reading through the comments to gauge the community response and over on Reddit as well to understand the discourse around this new game coming in October 2023.
So far it seems very mixed with plenty of people quite happy with the direction CA Sofia is taking the game, but there is I would say a pretty large number of people who are disappointed for a variety of reasons.
We can see that in Reddit which generally is negative anyway but we can also see it in the videos CA has been releasing with roughly 25-30% of reactions on each video a dislike which is pretty damn high.
Today with everything I’ve seen so far I thought it might be a good opportunity to talk about what exactly Pharaoh is missing and speculate as to why there is so much negativity around the game in the Total War community right now.
Hope you enjoyed this video guys and if you did give it a like and drop any thoughts or questions in the comments section below. Subscribe for more total war content, gameplay and news and thanks for watching guys!
#TotalWar #TotalWarPharaoh #HistoricalTotalWar
SUBSCRIBE - / @theterminatorgaming
BUY ME A COFFEE! - www.buymeacoffee.com/thetermi
BECOME A TERMI MEMBER! - / @theterminatorgaming
JOIN THE TERMI DISCORD! - / discord - Hry
➡To be perfectly clear this is not “Doom and Gloom”, there’s still room for Pharaoh to improve & this is all speculative. At the end of the day Pharaoh at release may still be a fun historical game to play. Let me know what you think in the comments below!
🎉Become a channel member or Join my Patreon to play Total War with me & get discounted Merch! - www.patreon.com/TheTerminatorDonate
🚀Join the Termi Discord! - discord.gg/ZvbywUzQZB
It's doom brother
I agree with what you said- it’s just another cartoony looking thing without any immersive feel to it, another disappointment in a long line of disappointments
I suspect it will be, as they say "painfully average" as far as TW standards go. Not a bad game per say but its not going to blowing anyone's mind. the "new" mechanics they have added are mostly old features that not been seen in like 10 years, are they trying to pull a EA madden here? What actually NEW mechanics they have added don't sound very interesting at best and down right detrimental at worst.
The ability to strip armor from units as they fight in combat for example, is a interesting addition i will say. But it also sounds terrifying, that is a HUGE shake up form every other TW game to date. Probably going to another one of those things that divides opinions, you are ether going to like it or hate it.
Other then that is just feels like a another "saga game" so to speak. A Smaller project they use to test new Mechanics for future major releases.
It is doom and gloom if you are a empire player haha 😄
The setting is boring to be honest. I know that's going to ruffle some feathers, but listen. Ancient Egypt isn't boring, it's very interesting, I am very interested in ancient Egypt. But it's pretty boring for a battle/empire simulation game series. Ancient Egypt is a city builder setting, to build monuments and manage trade and population growth. It's just not a particularly interesting setting for a total war game specifically. Then throw in a lack of real innovation, the same old engine, the dullness of the UI and such, and you just had a mediocre mid game nobody is really excited for.
There are far better settings for TW, ancient Rome obviously, Pike and Shot, the Medieval era, but CA know they can't pull those periods off anymore, too much work for them, so they're picking kind of easy settings where the military history is more blurry and they can put in less effort.
If it was a Bronze Age game, I would be a bit interested, but it's not even full Bronze Age.
It's like releasing Thrones of Britannia and calling it Medieval 3.
EXACTLY! And locking super important cultures/factions behind DLCs is a big L if that actually is the case here
To be fair, they're not calling it Total War: Bronze Age. Basically they're just overcharging us. That's the only huge issue.
Great analogy
They could add nations like Assyria and Babylone
I hope they do it
@@davidstansbury9309 we have a Rome total war with different nations so....
My biggest problem is I want to feel like a commander through a variety of avenues, from my scouting, tactics, before battle prep, use of land etc. The latest Total wars seem focused on popping abilities and rock, paper scissors units. Just feels more like a mobile game of win quick battle in between collecting more land and money
I agree it’s just too arcade-y aimed at people with short attention spans
AGREEED omg you put it into words better than I could haha
Yeah the abilities and Arcady feel is a main turn off for me, even in rome 2 it feels like I spend most of my time in battles clicking ability buttons on all my units/commander on after the other instead of you know positioning them and using tactics. 'opt that unit is wavering spam inspire and other stuff instead of like reinforcing them with a fresh unit while getting them to fall back.
THIS
yeah its a shame total war throwed away so many of its theatrics and more realistic side of things to these E sports corporate bullshit micromanage focused combat. Its never about formations and more about ah shit was rock facing their scissors and have I made the effort to just press a few buttons every 5 seconds to make sure i can starcraft this shit. Like big warhammer fan and love the warhammer series but i have more auto resolves on that than in shogun 2
One thing that really turns me off is how cartoonish and over the top the animations look in Troy/Pharaoh compared to older titles. Rome II/Attila had their issues with the 32bit TW Engine 3, but the soldiers in these games felt more real than what we are getting now.
I agree with this from Three Kingdoms on idk if it's the engine or what but it's been a turn off... don't get me wrong looks great but doesn't feel right if that makes sense
@@CS_ShellShock23 Yeah the characters are so light and floaty, they don't act like real people. Poor animations.
IDK, it just seems like we're realizing how kinda fantastical ancient armor was compared to now which scratches at the nostalgia goggles a bit because they look great.... for a Troy DLC XD
idk what the fuck you talking about rome 2 feels like shit idk why people still praise that game it was horible on lunch and then when they fixed it was still one of the worst feeling battles of the classic games they felt fake they feel over lame idk why modern history fans love that stupid lame as game
100%. I havent felt immersed in these znimationssince rome 2 feels like a cartoon and not historical
Your commentary on the difference between the battles in real historical titles and the cartoony battles in Pharaoh and Troy is spot-on!
Disagree the big battles in Pharaoh look terrific. The city assaults are inspired.
He didn’t say that the battles in pharaoh Were bad, rather he points out that the historical immersion in previous titles added a certain quality that can’t be reproduced by flashy graphics and copy paste divisions. You smooth brain.
it's a game not a historical simulation and please tell me which games have better battles
@@khal7702 I'd say shogun 2 as an example. Looking at troy and pharaoh it seems to lack the grounded feel of units engaged in combat. The point of these historical games is to immerse yourself as if a historical simulation. Every soldier needs to feel like a man fighting for his life as heck and high water boils around him. Personally, but I think many people who like the classics agree, that you just don't get that feeling with troy or pharaoh. Which is unfortunate, I would have loved a grounded and cared for trojan war game.
@@khal7702 who said anything about a historical simulator? The community is calling for a grounded quality game. Battle UI, the way units are arranged and the general way battles look in Troy and Pharaoh is just terrible and looks damn cartoony. Stop settling for whatever these developers are pushing down your throat.
Something I miss from old total wars was traits and servants. It was hilarious. I remember one game with Pontus in Rome I where all my characters where so corrupt and useless that they drought my income. I had to increase taxes in order to keep my economy and pay my soldiers, but then I had to deal with lots of rebellions. My armies were so bad that I barely could protect my decadent empire. So sometimes I had to use diplomats to bribe entire enemy armies. The role play with old total wars was more open and interesting
Flaccid, sweaty, or having a boy toy was fire. You got generals the way they were and had to deal with them, like in real life. Now, these RPG elements in Pharaoh seem completely out of place in a historical game.
@@IliasTop exactly! I think they should come back to total war roots. I feel Rome I Total War remaster was a missed opportunity to experiment in that way.
@@victor-tw5lk i love babying my toptier generals while flinging my shitty generals to the backwater regions of my empire. Made for great RP.
@@ahoosifoou4211 There was also the 'Uriah' option - making the General and his bodyguard immolate themselves by attacking an enemy army on their own ... Used that a few times to get rid of absolute drop-kick Generals
i too really enjoyed the trainable trait system in Rome 2 and the extra characters and traits that generals and agents garnered in Empire. I would really like to see that improved and expanded upon... The intrigue system in Rome 2 was also pretty cool and could use some attention...
Yeah I was heavily disappointed with this being the next release instead of Empire 2, Shogun 3, or Medieval 3 but we'll just have to see if this one pans out
muh boring gun warfare!
@@yourealittlebitfat4344 gun warfare is anything but boring.
Seeing volleys of artillery strikes slaughtering men by the dozens, cavalry charges being shredded by gunfire, and infantry running through smoke, bayonets at the ready is exhilarating
@@yourealittlebitfat4344 It's only boring in Empire and Napoleon because the ai is dogshit in those games.
@@yourealittlebitfat4344 It could provide the most versatile gameplay so I doubt that it would be boring. Infantry vs Infantry in the new game, however, is gonna get boring real quick.
Bruh, they just finished TWW3. There is probably another team working on whatever TK2 could be. And CA Sofia proved to be a good studio, despite their poor Troy release, they turned the game into a good TW and a very good DLC. It was obvious that they would expand that formula for an Egypt Bronze Age as that's what people wanted.
My point is that Empire 2 or Medieval 3 or whatever, has at best started development after Warhammer 3 released Immortal Empires. So they wouldn't release it until at least October 2025. Or they just rush it to 2024.
One thing i'm missing as well is the detailed historical background information. I mean just look at the info texts you could read for each invention in Empire.
So true!
The Bronze Age fascinates me, and i love the characters from this period with how larger than life they feel. But, that latter part feels like the controversy with how hard CA is leaning into the characters and their mythologized roles. Also, the fact Babylon or the *Akaad isnt there feels strange imo.
My guess is that they might add them later as DLCs, depending on how well the game performs. I would love to see a broader map that includes the Aegean Sea and the Balkans in the future, even if it means just porting over Troy, which I imagine they must have done to build this anyways.
@@benmortimer1036 There's no 'depending on how well it performs', the game is already stated to release with three faction packs and a campaign pack DLCs.
Guess we should just download the Age of Bronze Mod, then.
Blame the success of warhammer series
😂
This is the true reason why CA are more obsessing with faction leader rather than faction
@@pachomiussinanicus1728 Yes, because CA definitely never dabbled into faction leaders and generals before Warhammer, like in Napoleon, or Rome 2's DLC campaigns, or Attila, or a couple of Medieval 2 Kingdoms campaigns.
Honestly, your third point was the one that resonated with me the most. I have very little interest in immortal/unkillable characters leading their factions. I'm torn on whether I'll get the game or not at the moment, but if each faction were a society rather than a character I'd shift much more towards getting it.
I much prefer characters. History is defined by great (and not-so-great) leaders who led their kingdoms and armies to greatness or downfall. One of the things I dislike the most in Shogun 2 is that the great historical rivalries of the Sengoku period will never affect your campaign. The most famous rivalry of all, Uesugi Kenshin and Takeda Shingen, will only fight each other once in the campaign as the loser of their first battle is nigh-guaranteed to die. If you are in a far-away clan, you will never meet those great leaders as they will most likely have died in battle by the time you reach the clan.
And even in other Total War games that don't cover a single conflict, there is no excitement in meeting any specific character from any faction. They're randomly-generated no-names who you don't have any history with and will die on your first battle with them. You'll never see the King of France in Medieval 2 and think "We meet again in glorious battle". You won't ever see a general and get giddy at clashing with someone famous. They're always going to be someone you forget about before you even remember they have a name.
Characters add flavour. They add a personal touch. They add roleplay opportunities. The series feels much better with them than without.
@@resileaf9501 you can have characters but not have them be immortal :)
@@rtsgod Not really. As I said, Shogun 2 has factions start with their historical leaders, but they're not going to survive longer than a single lost battle. There's nothing special with them.
@@resileaf9501 yeah, historical leader are characters to me. and them dying is ok. it's realistic. I prefer it that way. I want armies lead by men, not gods leading some cannon fodder nothings, and not all armies get totally destroyed in one battle, generals can run away or escape.
@@rtsgod And imo, Total War does better when famous characters do not die in battle. Napoleon's famous generals of the protagonist countries could meet each other often, and each battle between them would feel special because you would know that they were the best of their time. Rome 2's DLC campaigns with Ceasar and Hannibal (and probably others) similarly feel more special as well. Shogun 2 would be much better if famous leaders and generals had the same survivability as they do in Three Kingdoms.
And no, generals can't run away and escape in Total War. Generals who lose a battle die along with their entire army. If not in the battle itself when the general unit is defeated, then in the cleanup when you chase what few routers managed to escape. Escaping armies in Total War never survive to return home.
Personally i loved that total war attila had civilians in the villages and cities, it let the battle map look more alive besides that i loved its graphic and i am afraid that total war Pharao will make a big step back in that matter
Three kingdoms did it too. They even carried swords and could fight, and if they caught a soldier separated from the unit, they could even win lol
Reminds me of that video of an Attila general giving a speech when a peasant woman walks over and the general casually slays her and continues the speech.
@@jimmycombs8159just started 3K because it was on sale. So far I’m really impressed. Little details, for example the civilians you mention. The fact that if an army sallies forth and engages you from a settlement, the battle map shows the settlement in the distance behind the army sallying out.
I was defending a settlement once, and this one lady villager kept cutting off the heads of enemy soldiers with a knife. I loved watching that.
@@DoctorWubBree heh you would like Medieval 2 or Rome 1 then, if you sally out, you have to literally walk out of the city to attack the enemy, 100% city is accessible too and you can even lure enemy into trap
Taking napoleon tw as an example for good battles is something i fully agree with.
So i'll try to name a few things i belive make napoleons battles great(some of which couldnt be transferred to pharaoh)
-less stats, more actual things happening:
this takes the form of terrain, where hills block shots by recoiling, troops taking cover behind walls are smaller to hit, and don't just get "missile resist" or something, square formation doesn't just give "charge defense" modifier, it actually works against horses because your guys defend in all directions, always engaging the cavalry head on and shooting at them, just to name a few.
In contrast, from what i've seen from pharaohs formations its more stat buffs/debuffs, and cartoonstyle pushing through hordes.
Generally i love that you can play napoleon without reading stats, but you need to read descriptions to see what units do.
-scale:
not necessary unit scale, but time scale. Battles in napoleon take vastly longer than e.g. in warhammer, leaving ample time for tactics. This is also because units take their time to move, they get exhausted fast and need to walk often. This means more thinking were to send your troops, less spamclicking around. Gives the battles more grandeur and less of an arcady feel.
terrain: already went into it in point 1, but terrain in napoleon is extremely relevant(in great part due to gunpowder warfare being more interesting than melee warfare) And you can enter buildings, use cover, need to always check line of sight etc.
Details: battles in napoleon feel extremely realistic because of all the details: Musicians playing marches while moving, the small drum roll when a unit gets in formation, ready to fire. Units standing around relaxed, weapons at ease when waiting, and going alert when an enemy gets close. They climb over terrain instead of running it over. The smokeclouds when firing which fill a battlefield... There is so much immersion to be had in a tw napoleon battle
If you buy Pharoah you need to walk around with "Gullible Fool" written on your forehead for at least 2 years.
I'll just wait until it's on sale and the overhaul mods come out. No way I'm paying $60+tax.
I know right! The pricing is insane for this
I remember my first playthrough as the Kingdom of Jerusalem in M2TW in the DLC and only having my king for all of my campaign, as I was against adopting other members and married him, only for his eldest son to be 15 and just turning 15 when my king died in the last battle against the Byzantine forces before the siege of Constantinople. At that second all of my efforts to maintain Jerusalem's supremacy in the region were for naught, as the Kingdom died with my king.
This kind of thing is something that is missing from most of the modern TW games, as it adds the issue of risk of losing the campaign, but I'd like a regency system like in Shogun 2, where you could continue if you had underage sons.
When it was first revealed, I was excited that we might get a game set in the bronze age. And I want to fight the sea People and hope to hold a nation until after the collapse.
Now we need a STONE AGE Total War 😎
Shit this isn’t far off.
With DINOSAURS!
Flintstones & Rubbles
total war: primal... looking forward to it. your massive army of 3 apes with improved clubs conquers the next cave by slaying the 4 defending apes...
World war stone age
You have many good points in this video but there is also a another major issue that historical players are concerned about, especially the old timers and that is the watering down of features and instead of delivering perhaps better and different features it seems more like straight up downgrades as the years have passed by. Also not to forget is the changes to the unit combat such as the hp bars and the stat modifiers in the newer versions compared to the older titles such as Rome and Med2. So there are quite a few old timers that have abandoned the series entirely cause they dont believe that CA can deliver the real total war experience anymore, and its a valid concern as most of the original developers are not at CA anymore if I am not mistaken and have not been for some time.
HP has *always* been part of Total War. Old games where units had one HP didn't mean that one attack killed them, because a lot of attacks did less than one damage. The only difference is that now the game tells you what the numbers actually are.
@@resileaf9501the issue is that in the old games individual soldiers would have their own hp whilst nowadays after war hammer it is a unit wide health pool.
@@hillbilly3772 It's not unit wide though. Last I checked, individual units will die to AoE attacks. Considering Grimgor's immortulz banner that prevents individual black orcs from dying until their morale is broken, it's pretty obvious that they all have their individual health bar.
I wrote almost an exact copy of this comment on the "paraoh egyptian faction deep dive video" before reading yours. Well said.
@@resileaf9501You are both correct
Great video and thank you for the shoutout
- No Mesopotamia is a big opportunity when a Rome total war mod and the age of bronze mod and CKIII mod gives you the whole experience. I will campaign to bring as much as I can to add in Mesopotamia. Either we get a 3rd game and combine to a mortal empires map or something like that.
- if this game doesn’t work then forget about Mesopotamia ever being added or a 3rd game in the Bronze Age. This is really the only big game set in the Bronze age and I don’t want it going Imperator and I agree there needs to be compromise of characters vs factions when you choose them
- I would really love for historical characters to have an immortal type - they can die or they can’t die abd that would be toggable.
- Family tree and marriage is needed in such a vast era that is the Bronze Age.
- User interface must reflect that cultures and unit cards needs change.
- Napoleon also had immortal Generals interestingly
What’s a good work around for characters vs faction focus?
Main problem is this isn’t the Bronze Age. It’s essentially a tiny sliver of the Bronze Age just before the collapse which is the end game dilemma.
i think the character/faction is thing is heavily context sensitive: for example it fits decently here, in that i can conceive it to be fine, but faction would have also worked fine, however, if they were to make lets say a medieval 3 i'd heavily push for a charcter based system like 3 kingdoms, personal retenues and such, for its much closer to feudalism than factions, for shogun 3 we could also imagine something similar altho clans can work fine as factions too. Ultimately really depends on the history period you're working with.
I think one of the problems is that they appear to be launching this with some of the key factions held back, to be later sold as DLC, sticks in the throat of most players. This feels like marketing is leading this development rather than ppl who are interested in the period or the game. Personally, I'll wait for release and decide afterwards whether I want to play... this from someone who gerenerally pre-orders.
That's every total war all the way back to Rome so nothing new
It'll be great at 50% off a few years down the track. Super keen to give it a go when the price is right
and the inevitable dozens of DLC will be included
@@dholl17Nah, I think they'll do the opposite and dump it after the promised 3 just to get the bare minimum. If the original sales are low (and I'm sure the preorders are very low) then there is no point in milking it anymore. There is no milk in the cow to begin with
rome 2, attila, even troy, all feel shit now. so enjoy the shit feel years away to save a couple dollars kid.
I want Med 3 or Empire 2 so the only thing that keeps my disappointment in check is that it's not the main studio making it so theres still hope.
I just don't undestand why CA would think Pharaoh is what the fans want?!?
Why can't they listen to the community and give us a Medieval 3. We've only been asking for it, for years.
I disagree on the immersion argument. From what we hear from behind the scenes both on Troy and Pharaoh they seem to be very on top when it comes to authentic equipment etc. I don't think the "problem" is a lack of authenticity, I think it's a lack of popular "fantasy" for the time-period. When people think of Samurai, they immediately "know" what they looked like because they've seen it in a dozen Hollywood movies. So if a game follows the popular idea of what medieval Japan looked like, it'll feel authentic to us. There is barely any media set in bronze-age Egypt, so there is no popular idea of what this period is "supposed" to look like, ergo for most people it will feel inauthentic no matter what, because they don't know what would be authentic or not.
Also, the world wasn't all drab before 1900. Just because people used to wear colors doesn't make it inauthentic.
Can't really argue with the other points. i wasn't even aware this wasn't marketed as a Saga title, because it very clearly is. I learned to like Troy a lot after a while, so I'll give it a try, but it certainly won't be for anyone who didn't enjoy Troy at all
Given that the current engine they use was created to suit the gun-powder battles of empire 1, it would be an obvious next step to release empire 2 next. This engine has struggled with unit collisions ever since it replaced medieval 2's engine, but on the contrary really shines with gunpowder as seen in Fall of the Samurai.
I long for a medieval 3, but they just don't have the assets to do it justice right now imo. They aren't ready to actually make it good.
We need a new engine. I agree that gunpowder is the best with this engine, but bayonet charges were clumsy. We need both melee and ranged to be good. Anyways i am not optimistic anymore since it's all about the money now. I loved rome remastered with mods. Gets graphics, mechanics and better gameplay than in the new games. Wich should be an eye opener for Ca since rome as a base is from 2004. A game from 19 years ago is better than the new games... how is that possible? 😂
It's quite astonishing how CA is hellbent on avoiding using the engine for what it suits best.
Most of complains i have seen (at least the ones i saw) it's because the game isn't Medieval 3.
Honestly, Empire deserves way more love. The actual market has quite the lot of medieval setting games out there.
Still, doesn't mean that the game looks horrible. It won't be "Oohh yeah, best historic return ever!" but it will be an ok game, and most likely much of the things they use on Pharaoh will be applied for future games.
Hoping to see that they add Troy map to it and expand the area to Mesopotamia (dlc most likely)
What do you mean? There are basicaly no rts battle games out there, let alone medieval ones. Mount and Blade might be the only other game series that actualy does real time battles (even though the scales are waaay smaller). Total war basically has a monopoly in the rts scene with their of style of games.
I hope they dont make empire next because they will ruin it and that is a glorious game that shouldnt be handled by these CA infidels
If it is 20 dollars, it would be worth it as a regional Total War title.
Creative Assembly is too big. Their corporate heads are not thinking rationally. They're out of touch with their base, like so many other large studios and media companies.
The truth is CA is trying to replicate Warhammer but removing the licencing part so they can take all the money. They don't care about historical fans, but the money they got from Wahammer. The problem is Warhammer fans are into the games not for the Total War part, so CA is losing both fans of Warhammer who don't care about history, and history fans who're maybe tired of "warhammerish" games.
Just look at Troy and Pharaoh: both are games so focused on heroes (I didn't play Three Kingdoms, but I bet it shows a patter shifting towards this).
In fact, I dislike the "there must be a general" from Rome II, I miss the "promising captain" thing from the first Rome, where a good captain could be adopted, that made the game far more deep and realistic by having promotions, but now you should hire a general everytime the previous one dies or worse: gets hurt (why? A hurt general shouldn't lose his positio unless he f**ked up badly).
Used to be that when playing the first few turns, fighting the first few battles, you tried your damn hardest to lose as few as possible, and those you lost felt (in the words of the film 12 Strong) "like a stab to the heart". Nowadays, with the newer games I at least tend to autoresolve and call it a day.
Personally, I fear that Total War as a whole is just dead, not because of a lack of players, but because of the missing strategy and tactics in recent games.
Battles don't feel or look organized, just a bunch of units beating up each other.
I once saw a Video from Rome II: Weak spearmen + weak cavalry vs. strong swordsmen. The spearmen bound the swordsmen in melee while the cavalry charged them from behind.
Result: The swordsmen lost a lot of _hitpoints_ but almost no one died. They just continued fighting as if nothing happened, the spearmen fled, and despite being f*cking *charged from behind* the swordsmen won the battle!
Unit formations are also weird, since they alter the units stats, instead of altering the unit's behaviour.
The testudo formation used to be just one thing: Soldiers getting closer together, protecting each other with their shields. They were still vulnerable from the sides and (especially) from behind.
In modern games, the unit receives the stat boost even if they haven't got into formation yet, they also are invunerable from behind...
Do you remember how it was possible to move troops without a general?
How you could organise garrisons on your own?
That one of the game's challenges was to replenish your units in foreign lands?
How you weren't artificially limited to a few building slots?
How the battlefield looked like the area on the campaign map? You could also see fleets, cities and other landmarks in the distance.
CA Sofia didn’t make ToB, they made Troy and the R2 DLC’s Empire Divided and RotR. They, as of so far, aren’t the “designated saga team”.
i mean with me i’m partly happy with it. since bronze age is an interesting time and it’s nice to see new historic games rather then remakes. and seeing that they added banners make me thing sofia can listen to their community
Good for you brother! I like a lot as well including for the reasons you've cited :)
I think the same, bronze age is cool
They’ve decided to add banners?
Bronze Age is great. It’s just that the Bronze Age could have been done better and I hated Troy. It didn’t do enough to separate itself from Troy and the apparent narrow view of the period
@@zacheryhalbert yeh i know, i hope and it seems the battle are better. i’m no way a genius on the bronze age but i at least know they’re missing a massive part with assyria and other stuff which i dunno
I would argue that the most anticipated game for TW fans would be an Empire 2. It had such potential with that HUGE map & the ability to colonize the Americas & India... but it flopped!
I think people weren't ready for that game when it came out, it was also too ambitious for it's times. However we desperately need it now. newer releases feel so empty, so trivial.
@@TomaniakkThe battle mechanics were too different from previous titles. They still feel super weird and clumsy to this day, like trying to steady a tray of water that's started sloshing around.
If CA released a new Empire, or even pike and shot era game, would you expect them to get the battles right?
@@kurremkarmerruk8718Was my biggest issue with it, that and the braindead AI. Empire is super easy to cheese, especially in defensive battles.
My favourite TW game ever tbh. Such a grand scale and lots of unit variety and nations to choose from.
@@nommsi remember defending the houses, praying to defeat all their infantry so i can just wait out until the battle ends as thecavalry cannot enter houses
it worked
and then i had to wait for another 40 minutes(sped up 3x, so more like 10-15) because i played with 60 minute battles xd
and as fun as it is to defeat an army with nothing but a handful of militia, it shouldnt be feasible.
Napoleon was my first Total War game and I still have yet to find another historical total war that excites me like that one does.
Agents? I loved the little cut away animations with assassins.
2:05 SO HAPPY YOU SAID THIS.
People cannot seem to grasp why the 3K DLC rug pull was so important as a consumer.
In modern day gaming, with every game being sold as a live service, each piece of DLC that you purchase is a vote of confidence that the game deserves further support. The value of each DLC changes relative to value the full game is after it has been supported by new content..
Did people pay to preorder DLC in 3k? Like, did CA provide the option to pay for future DLC upfront when they released 3K? Did they ever accept money for future DLC that was suppose to come, but never did during 3K’s life cycle? I was out of the loop then.
@@emanuelalfred1565 No, Pharaoh is the first Total War game where you can buy all DLCs in advance.
Honestly I don't get the 3K complaints about not having more DLC than it does. Total War is not a live service game. It's not a game where you get stuff from playing every day. You buy it once, play it whenever you like. It doesn't matter if you play it today or in five years, it's going to be the same thing.
I don't understand why that's a problem for people.
Price & Main Historical Title is the problem for me, I can’t see enough to justify either.
You my sir, are the man! Love your videos ♥
@@TheTerminatorGaminglikewise my friend!
I just feel sorry for the studio of Sofia, i don't think they are making a bad product, i think they just fail at giving what peopole want and get a lot of backlash because of it...a bit too much backlash.
We need MORE features if anything. In times like these, being creative is well worth the risk.
while playing rome 2 dei I’ve caught myself leaving just because I don’t want to lose one of my long time running generals, I’m glad you pointed that out as being just the grand scale immersion because I’ll think I’m crazy sometimes getting a little too excited at those ambushes 🤣
I honestly feel that morale is a greatly overlooked function that has completely disappeared. I loved it in Shogun 2 when I could make an enemy route with well-aimed tactics. Ever since Rome 2 it feels like everybody fights tills the death. Historically as well battles are more about making the other person run away, and less about slaughter.
There are just so many issues they do nothing about.
My personal biggest problem with modern titles is definitely the focus on generals, lords or heroes.
I miss being harassed by a tiny army of 1-5 units where I could just send my garrison out of the city to handle them or bribe them with a diplomat.
I miss being able to break off a part of my army to siege that smaller settlement while my main army continued on to a larger settlement.
I miss having multiple armies out without being severely punished for it by some stupid mechanic increasing the cost of every one of my units just because I recruited one guy 5 provinces away.
And I miss being able to send a small navy out to hamper another nations trade by placing it on a trade route while my primary blockaded theirs in or chased them off to some far off corner of the map.
Every battle in modern titles seem to be 20+ units because that's how many you can conveniently bring around while also being powerful enough to fight 90% of all battles. Just give me my small armies back and let me put as many units as I want into one army, how hard can it be? Just have it stay as 20 at the start of the fight and let us put the rest in a reinforcement list, possibly where we can arrange which order they arrive in.
Could potentially give something like 4 reinforcement points you can drag around like they currently have with reinforcing armies in wh3. Let us put units into the locations at the start of the battle with the time they take to arrive depending on the slowest units speed, suddenly cavalry will have a massive advantage for outflanking your enemy right at the start and maybe make it worth getting more than one or two units to chase down stragglers.
Give me back some of the strategy and tactics on the campaign map, not just "I have a faster army with superior faction mechanics so I can just waltz past your army and destroy cities in your backline for the next 10 turns till you can set up an ambush".
Sidenote: I also miss the old population and tax mechanics of cities in Rome 1 and Medieval 2.
They do this on occasion, Napoleon was supposed to be an expansion but turned into full game etc. Now I think this has potentiall for a few reasons. Firstly it aims to actually change battles with events and things to consider like nature. This is something I have wanted for over a decade. Battles in Total War needs more interactions with both its maps/surroundings and the weathers. Also Troy was a stellar game so I hope this is good to. Egypt is a great place to set a more focused Total War.
Just imagine if a Total War had something similar to an EA "Create Your Own Player", where you raise a warrior from childhood. That or were able to play as an individual soldier that isn't a siege engine.
If you want to play this, maybe just Play Dynasty Warriors
Go play Mount and Blade. That's the game you're describing lol
Literally mount and blade.
What I think your trying to describe is like romance of the three kingdoms by koei, which the recent ones let you make your own custom officers
It show cases stupidity on CA's part, being so clearly out of touch with their customers, Pharaoh is a game that no one asked for. We've been waiting ages for a new historical TW and then out of nowhere CA drops this hot trash on us.
I didn't want Medieval 3 either but compared to this I would have been more than happy to buy that instead, but this was just laughably dumb from CA.
The worst part is this will predictably bomb and then CA will go "Welp we didn't make money on our last historical game so we don't think we'll make anudder one durrrrr"
Not being able to send the enemy general to hell is a pretty MAJOR issue
I care so little about the character focus
I want to them to show a entire era of history not a character drama. It’s my problem with 3K even though it is probably the best historical TW
Why do so many people want matched anims ? They are really not all that immersive, medieval 2 like combat felt the most real because unlike with matched, units could gang up on each other and greater numbers actually mattered, instead of everyone having polite 1v1 duels. And fighting in medieval 2 was pretty realistic, if only cavalry was a lot more op than realistic. Overall, I like the less op cav from the later games but medieval 2's the closest we have gotten to a perfect total war.
Long story short: noone asked for game with this setting...
Everybody wants empire or medieval but CA keeps pumping their ressources into stuff like this and lets the other games balance out their loses with increasing dlc prices to keep a profit.
Basically warhammer dlcs keep CA alive atm because most of the other stuff they do nowdays is bringing them to ruin
Imagine them making medieval 3 but you play as Richard the Lionhearth and not as England
For me I was happy when the next total war was total war pharaoh because this era is really exciting But what disappointed me the most is several things:
1) It's that we play a character and not a faction so we are rather limited in the campaign Unless if we want to play someone 20 years old
2) That the CA blow always makes us On a map not big enough for the context of the time (forget Assyria, Babylonia and to be more diverse add ancient Greece or even give the opportunity to play the people of the sea
3) The characters are not historically faithful (outfit) look at me Irsu, Bay, Amnmess and the Hittite characters So it's our next historical total war Big disappointment and I'm definitely not going to buy it especially given the price
yeah, they say its not a saga, but looks saga sized, and they say its historical meanhwhile my dude irsu be looking like a disney villain
Okay imma be real, I like that you play as Ramses or when we play as certain individuals. It's just Egypt is not that interesting of an era to me.
I would not be surprise if this was originally a saga game and would have had fantasy elements like Tory but they changed it since Tory didn’t do so well due to it trying to sit the fence on historical/grounded and fantasy/arcady
My main problem with Pharoah is just that it isn't what anybody expected or was asking for for years. It may be a great game though, but I will be waiting until it releases to see how it goes.
Exactly it just feels like a side project in between another big release
Bronze Age IS something people have been asking for for years.
@@Naeron66sure, but thats not necessarly what most historical players wants especially nowadays when people have been waiting nearly 2 decades for a potential medieval 3 thats not coming any time soon.
Or the Napoleon and Empire players that ever since have been waiting religiously for an Empire 2, which really only need a few fix to be a true masterpiece.
The bronze age isnt exactly one of the more popular period in history too, which is a shame but true nonetheless
@@erwannthietart3602 Bronze age has always been in the lists.
You speak as though what you want is what everyone wants. CA are going to give us what they think will be the most profitable. That there has not been a medieval 3 indicates that CA's research has told them it wasn't a good choice.
@@Naeron66 what i want? Not a total war game in the first place since a monopoly on a type of game by one company leads to substandart games since they can afford minimal efforts for maximum profits (hence why i dont touch most of Paradox Interactive newer works too since they never finish their game on launch and finish it under the guise of overpriced DLC's).
I never said no one would want a Bronze age game, i love the Bronze age its intriguing its mysterious its full of stuff we wont ever know for sure irl, but i can understand that the majority of the current historical fans may want a new game of their favorite era instead of yet another era
Unkillable faction leaders, units with health bars, mobile game UI, a period where so little is known it can't really help but be a fantasy-history game. CA have forgotten why people liked historical total war games.
i play medieval 2 the most just with the mods and how enjoyable the game is you build a city or town and defend it with units recuited and you see a different settlement every tier and all the buildings you build how many total war games have that attention to detail?
What I'd really love to see is an era that total war has yet to touch on (in europe), in between the period of the medieval games and empire. I think a ~200 year campaign from 1492 (Spanish first contact with the Americas) to 1700 (start date of empire total war) would just be great. You have the reformation, competition between nascent colonial empires, innovations in military tactics and technology, the struggle between absolute monarchs and increasingly powerful parliaments/diets. It's just such a rich period (with a lot more verifiable historical information to draw inspiration from compared to the late bronze age collapse).
Pike and Shot units are really tough to program, I guess. Spanish Tercio It's, like, a melee and missile unit at the same time. Half pikemen, half musketeers. How would you storm a castle with such units? And, I mean, how would you program a unit like this?
But if devs would solve this issue, I would be very interested in such a game. 30-year war, European struggle against the Ottoman Empire, and the struggle for independence of Ukrainian Cossacks, against Poland, Muscowy, and Ottomans. Very interesting period.
@@petrovepryk3786 I'd say the best solution to the problems that come with mixed pike-and-shot units is to simply not make mixed units. Aside from the practical issues with programming, it doesn't make a lot of sense to make these brigade-size formations into single units in-game. To compare to Rome 2, it would be like recruiting entire legions at a time rather than single cohorts. A better solution in my mind is to have separate units of pike and shot, but make group formations for tercios/Dutch battalions/Swedish brigades, etc. That way the units are more versatile and you can split up your ranged and melee units for sieges, or group some shot with your cavalry in the Swedish style.
@@petrovepryk3786it’s not that hard they did it for Kislev with their Streltzi. It’s not that hard to program
M
I'm looking forward to Pharaoh. Medieval 3 is more than likely in the works. My one complaint is the icons above units. I hate them. I like the banners and the different colors way better. It's a small detail but it is enough to irk me
What I’d like to see is a Victoria era, thirty years war era, Trajan era (5 good emperors), third crusade era. I also do like the idea of a bronze era I’d like to see a historical bronze era done properly this could also be many era but they need to keep it historical
u juste summarized several of my thoughts and idea in here , Thank u
I'm starting to believe that CA Sophia have the project to deeply please only one fan: ME!
First they made a total war on the Trojan war (I'm a big student of Homeric literature) and now a game on my favorite civilization. Yeah I can understand why most people want a Medieval 3, but we have SO many medieval strategy games, and almost none about the bronze age that I don't mind.
Troy reskin accusations have always rung hollow. Total War has always used prior games as foundations for later ones more or less directly.
Medieval 2 was built on the foundations of Rome 1. Napoleon on Empire. Fall of the Samurai on Shogun 2 and Napoleon alike. Atilla on Rome 2. Thrones of Britannia on Atilla. Three Kingdoms on Warhammer. Troy on Three Kingdoms.
Here, Pharaoh is being built on the foundations of Troy (and is being worked on by the same studio that made Troy as well, so they naturally have a lot of assets they can recycle, especially in alpha versions to take shortcuts), but it doesn't stop it from being unique and having its own identity. It's developing new features, new systems, new gameplay mechanics, all of which will later be used as proofs of concept and foundations for future games.
A lot of complaints are just complaints to be complaints. We've got changing and impactful weather and terrain, unit stances, a more dynamic endgame crisis affected by campaign events, cultural rosters, and more, all of which will affect future games in positive and interesting ways.
Complaints against price, sure, I get it, but that's not unique to CA. Everything is getting more expensive because the world's economic stability is getting more and more precarious. The videogame industry's not immune to that and I don't think things are gonna get better any time soon. Complaints against not calling it a Saga game, well, Shogun 2 covers a much smaller landmass and a shorter timespan, so that's really not a viable argument either (and honestly, Saga wasn't a particularly well-thought out concept to begin with, Total War is Total War).
Man Empire 2 or Medieval 3 would change my life. I don’t understand why they aren’t keeping to their core games.
At the gameplay level I mostly just want to see a return of 'simulating battles with all their intricacies', rather than videogame-y layers upon layers of stat-boosts, modifiers, unit abilities and "heroes". There's just no depth to any of this numbers crunching and ability clicking - it's hectic and boring at the same time.
I also agree with you on the aesthetics/interactive storytelling part, though. Having your generals acquire traits based on where they were stationed and what they did with their time was somehow far more interesting than the 'leveling systems' of recent Total wars that you have full control over, precisely because it makes the world feel like it's 'alive in itself'.
I definitely feel that the success of TWW (a game revolving around powerful hero units that can slay armies single-handedly), has led CA to export this model to their historical titles where it just feels very unrealistic.
You really hit the nail on the head for all the problems that many of us have with the new game, it really shows that you took your time checking the comments, reactions and even the Reddit forums; This video explains exactly what is the feeling of all the fans of historical games, that since Shogun 2 (for example) are waiting for a game from the Victorian era (because Fall of the Samurai practically facilitated the development of a game like this) or even a game from the Renaissance era, with pikes and muskets, using the map mechanics of Empire Total War and the formations and shooting mechanics of Shogun 2 as well. All taking advantage of things that had been evolving since Medieval 2 and that made many feel that Rome 2 and Attila was the wrong decision for CA (despite the fact that both games are enjoyable anyway), since the natural would have been to continue with the period advance that Shogun 2 opened for us.
The companies don't understand what players want.
Most importantly, core mechanics were gutted out, and I do not mean buzzwords like "immersion", but actually real attrition, Actual strategic logistics of getting reinforcements across the map instead of stupid passive replenishment that negates any and all casualities and thus making campaign just custom battle faction selector, no stupid overbuffing of artificial numbers, lack of resources which creates decision making instead of broken laughable economy, overbuffing doomstacks instead of armies of limited specialized pools of costly elites mixed with fodder etc. ...
But hey, CA totally forgot how to make actual real game, they care only for "accessibility" instead of depth and that led to the murder of a game to be played and birth of a game that plays you with its cheats, AI that ignores basic fundamental movement and recruitment restrictions and core stuff like attrition...
Last unmodded game that actually managed to do it right was Shogun 2 and FOTS where research, money managment, strategy, logistics and especially tactics mattered. THAT was REAL sandbox... not these +X% Dmg Doomstacking map painters for extreme casuals that cant use second half of their only brain cell...
This video was greatly needed. A nuetral, unbiased presentation addressing the issues with the upcoming release. Hopefully, CA will take this to heart before/while developing future titles. Thank you, for being our voice!
❤️❤️
Hint:
It's not the setting. It's the mechanics, engine and the AI.
as a history fan, I don't think they could do much about character focus as I think historically, especially during the bronze ages, there is no like identity of nationhood but more like they identified with people group with a leader and followed what the leader said. Which is way different from how it was during the Hellenistic age with alexander, basically I think alexander is the one who changed it for his empire to include people from all groups instead of his army and generals consisting only of macedonians. but I think it started even before that with the persians.
For example u could take the story of King Saul and David... Both had an army and both were fighting each other. But their wars were not about nation or country or people, it was about thier personal ambitions, so they didn't have a nation name behind their army. it was army of saul vs army of david. which is different from civil wars fought in later ages with romans. Its not until later that people started identifying with the nation israel and judah instead of kings themselves.
so historically speaking, in bronze age ,wars were fought between certain people and not between nations, not most of the time. It's just we are projecting our modern understanding of nationhood to the history which is not how it worked back then.
So in this one killing off the character is like killing of the entire nation itself. which is different from later ages where king dying doesn't mean the people are going to scatter and lose the identity. Identity of people were very much based on the person they follow, nationhood did not exist.
I guess the better way to explain it is, each important character has an army, but not every character with an army has a nation. which is what the war is about, getting the nation. Think of it as political parties fighting each other but instead of it being vocal in parliament, its wars.
So i find it a bit sad that fans of the game are asking for nation focused thing like other titles when such a thing did not exist historically in that time period. Like the game is about multiple characters in same nation fighting for power, not like nation split in two and civil war.
Since the focus on leaders as the main faction identity came with Warhammer and everything before wasn't, "historical" fans might associate "character focus = fantasy and not really historical".
But I agree. In fact, I'm disappointed that Shogun 2 is so little character-focused while it was a period of leaders like Oda Nobunaga. Or Medieval 2 which has weirdly... nationalist approach with this whole "each nation = single faction" (except for the Italy). It's especially painful with Holy Roman Empire which funcitoned more like a confederacy, Poland which in that period was outright split over multiple princes with no real central authority (and no kings because of that), Novogrod being the same as Russia and being the only real faction in the area, distinctions between Seljuk, Rum or Ottoman and many more.
@@vladprus4019 yeah crusades should technically be more hero based cause historically it wasn’t a nation leading and army it was different generals leading the army in crusades which lead to interesting dynamics , like Richard lionheart and Saladin are two famous ones .
@@technoguy1290 Problem imo comes with seeing nations in the history through the lens of the post-enlightment nationalism instead of much more... fuzzy reality of the times before it. Total War games past Rome 2 are doing it quite well with factions being part of the different cultures/nations, but having no faction that represent "the nation" in it's entirety (with some justifiable exceptions).
Those games have their own set of problems, and I can see why fans of older games might not like that (I myself have some set of criticism), but "not being historical enough" isn't it, especially since the "more historical" games were running purely on the popculture, quasi-nationalistic, interpretation of history.
While I completely agree with the price complaint, I see where the team is coming from on the faction design and "scale" of battles. I get some want their leader to die, but the bronze age is filled with so much mystery and lost information that you would struggle to make full factions. Irsu for example is basically a mystery and more or less a boogeyman from the text there is of him. As for the size I can understand why these grand armies would feel so small. Megiddo being the most famous battle between the Egyptians and Hittites fielded roughly 21,000 soldiers whereas Cannae or Alesia is six times or greater than that. It's a bit wonky and gaudy by the looks of it but this feels to me like more of a historic title than Troy.
For me the main problem is that it is a copy, not only of Troy, but all the way back to Rome II. It still using the same campaign map style and battle style. The core is still the same because it is after 10 years basically still the same old (and in my opinion very flawed and not very pretty) engine.
So by this point i will just refuse to buy any new Total War untill they start over fresh with a new and BETTER engine. Until than i just stick with the games i have and like.
The only thing that i disliked about Rome 2 was the province system, apart from that the game is good and brings a lot of replays, including a huge modding support from the community. Not sure what you mean by "same old core". Core of what, what are you even referring to? If you`d be so fed up with the new total wars like you mention, you would`nt even be watching this, so please, you know you will buy it.
@@youtubeisafascistdictators4829 I don't get the bad core rome 2 arrangements. Rome 2 still followed the older game core mechanic. I was still ok with province system I did preferred the older system. A Major problem of Rome 2 was the bugs and missing features of older titles it was still a total war game at heart. The major diraction change is when attila came that when CA had redo the game engine after the all bugs rome 2 had.
On the note of characters vs society, I feel that that is the biggest turn-off for me.
For Troy, it absolutely made sense for the conflict to be focused around the characters because that's what the Illiad was built around. Achilles vs Hector, the schemes of Odysseus, Paris stealing Helen being the cause for the war in the first place. The Trojan War was the story of the characters.
But a story about the Bronze Age Collapse should be about the societies, because they're what's at stake. The literally collapse of civilization as the people of its time know it. The fighting with the knowledge that if the player fails, there won't _be_ an Egypt, or a Hittite Empire left. What's however ambitious Ramses is compared to the knowledge that all of Egypt, this legendary civilization that has stood for aeons, may fall, never to rise again?
I’m looking forward to seeing how Pharaoh turns out but I absolutely agree the focus on individual leaders as the identity of an entire faction rather than the culture being the focus itself is the biggest problem.
Medieval 3 with 8 player campaign would be a dream
Three kingdoms had character factions but still heirs and family tree. This could too.
Maybe it's just my cynicism talking, but I think the franchise as a whole has been backsliding since Rome 2.
I'm not saying all of the new games are bad. In fact, I enjoy the hell out of the Warhammer games personally. That being said, I can't really overlook the fact that all of the new games have either removed or "dumbed down" an absolute ton of features that were present in older games.
Off the top of my head,
-navel battles
-agent videos
-proper formations
-properly simulated ballistics (this one is actually pretty ironic)
-wall ballistics changing with upgrades
-actual sieges
Gotta love the historic community going "Yeah I haven't given you any money in a decade, but you should absolutely cater to me and until you do I'm gonna downvote everything you put out and trashtalk you in the comments".
I lol'd at this. Seriously though I think players just care a game that truly will be good value for money. Most didn't see that in ToB, Troy and when they did with 3K they were stabbed in the back. Sooooo there's a half truth in what you say, but the other side of the coin is also understandable
@@TheTerminatorGaming Oh, I get where the other side is coming from, I just vehemently disagree with how they choose to bring their point across.
Is CA trying to go bankrupt?
😂
It blows my mind how they still haven’t made Empire 2 or Napoleon 2. I think they should try their hand at making a WW1 or WW2 Total War game
Very accurate commentary. Another point if I may add is that historical titles add historical context. Buildings, units, nations, etc. all had deep descriptions based on the actual history. It’s not the most intriguing aspect, but it completely immerses me and I spend large amounts of time just reading about the era. And let’s not forget historically accurate scripted events!!
I like the look of the new formation mechanics and the terrain stuff like mud, that being said, I cannot think of a less interesting setting than Egypt and the early bronze age.
A new Shogun, Medieval or Empire game would have sold me almost instantly, I hope these mechanics they're pushing in this game carry on like the formation ceding ground stuff.
Well, this game is actually in the late bronze age. The very end of the Bronze Age, actually, the bronze age collapse. I personally think setting the game earlier would actually be better. Setting it at the start of the late Bronze Age about 500 years earlier and then widening the scope to focus more on the rise of these various cultures.
So you're blinded by nostalgia?
I prefer a more character focus game, aside Shogun 2 the other historical titles focus on time periods or places that i really don't care or ever like about (like napoleon), the thing that attracts me a little towards Pharaoh is their leaders which allow me to get into it that time period with a more interest approuch. The reason why i prefer the character over nation approuch is that i find the generalization concept very boring compared to a more interpersonal history with rivalrys, plotwists, betrays, which you can have in a more nation approuch, but not as fulfilling in a more character approuch.
Also i really hate the old general mechanics, they were so useless because they could die by a stray arrow and then the whole army would defect, so every battle that have a general i was forced to hide him in the trees the entire battle.
When i played shogun 2 and the generals were kicking a** i was like "Oh HOLY NOW WHE ARE TALKING".
Something as or more complex like Atilla with modern graphics and proper optimation and new option on campaign and battle, then it will be worth the money they charge
Not to gloat, but I predicted this would happen to the series back when the first Warhammer was announced
CA: will make smaller total war titles and will call it a saga so that pepole can tell the differance between our major main titles and smaller more niche titles.
Also CA: our small niche titles arent making enough money and the majoraty don't see the point in it. Our solution is to stop calling them saga titles and make it cost more, while treating it like a main title without actually changing anything about the actual product.
Like how can you not hate this company and this game?
Small indie company, please understand
@@chadgoose7886 You could say it's the smallest indie company in UK
This is well-articulated. I have been following Total War since February 1999, when the first trailer for the original Shogun TW was released. I agree, Pharaoh looks to me like a reskin of Attila TW which came out back in 2015. The TW series has not released a serious historical game since then. I think it would have been wiser to just make Medieval 3. It's what the fans want. Come on, it's been 17 years since Medieval 2 came out and we are long overdue a sequel. Just think what that game could be if it was done with modern technology. I am aware there are mods like Medieval Kingdoms 1212 for Attila. But the mechanics of mods are often... not as satisfying as the vanilla game. They make changes to the campaign map that I don't like.
I think you're exactly right about the perception that this Pharaoh game is basically a Saga title, pretending not to be a Saga title, and charging full price. That won't work with the fans. I have been considering getting Troy recently, but I find the price of £50+ for a single game (not counting DLCs) ridiculous. Games have always been £29.99 and I'm not really willing to pay more, unless it's something truly spectacular. I appreciate that inflation over the past 20 years will make prices higher, but it's just too expensive for something that amounts to a gamble. A title like Medieval 3, I would be willing to pay almost any price for if it would be a good game.
By analogy, there are other games such as Dovetail Games' Train Simulator where players build up a library of content worth hundreds or even thousands of $. A lot of people complain about money there too, but at least you are getting a lot more content if you choose to buy it. There's a whole ecosystem of third-party providers that release sound packs, expansions, new content, new routes, reskins, etc. If I could pay to have somebody make incredible new maps and factions for Medieval 2, I would. The way the game has been totally transformed... if that could be applied to Total War, it would be incredible.
I think a lot of the historical player base is just very jaded by the way that CA has mismanaged things since 2013. People like me still remember the release of Rome II, the misleading hype, and the phenomenal disappointment, which was never rectified, at least in my opinion. Yes, Attila was a good game. It was how Rome 2 should have been. I'm talking about the game design and features. Warhammer is just not something I'd be interested in. I feel like CA has a hell of a lot of work to do to win back serious historical fans of these games. And I'm not sure a game focused so heavily on hero characters and RPG elements, and set in such a distant time epoch, is necessarily the right way to go about it.
I think people want a gunpowder based total war game. Similar to empire and napoleon. Napoleon especially, still has a major multiplayer base
The Backlash I think they are having is the fact that Ramses is the Son of Seti I. So technically there are only supposed to be 3 Egyptian Factions. But if you ask me, having both Seti and Ramses, is similar to Total War Troy when they separated Priam's Sons into different factions, but in this case it's father (Seti) and son (Ramses).
We just had Troy which is going to play pretty similarly this. We've waited so long for Empire/Napoleon 2... I would also accept Medieval but I do want a gunpowder game more. Pike and Shotte would be an interested era to explore.
“This needs to happen”. Whenever I hear someone with an opinion use the word “need” I ask “or what?” The makers of TW are a business, with SO much more player data than we have. I trust that they will act in their best interest to make money by making content that sells. Wether I buy this or any iteration of TW, that’s my choice as a customer looking for entertainment
Thank you for the content
Or fewer people buy the game. If they use their data so effectively why are we here again?
@@queefman6285 here again? When I become a decision maker of a gaming company, I can look at the data we have collected and make decisions that will effect the product I’m selling. Those consumers that agree, will buy, those who disagree, will not. If the game isn’t successful then I’ll lose my job, but if it is successful then I will be able to make decisions about the next game based on all the updated data. So when you say “here we are again” I’m guessing there was enough success with Troy to allow the Sofia office make the next title in the series.
i really would love a empire 2 if not at least medival 3
I hope CA sees this. You nailed the 3 topics. I want to add I liked how CA did Rome 1s politics and was hoping that would return
Many CZcams dislikes are probably Warhammer fans fuming that some Total War content isn't Warhammer related
They lucked out with the fantasy move financially, it saved the studio as their historical titles was not exactly groundbreaking. The biggest problem though is that their historical playerbase was by all means the most loyal and the most intelligent people around in my humble opinion. It will be extremely difficult to get their old loyal fans back at this point, and trying to get new historical players will be quite a task. I very much doubt the newer generations even get taught history like we did back in the 80s and 90s.
"History fans are the most intelligent people around", said by someone who only wants games about European history.
@@resileaf9501 This is not true. I personally loved Total War Three Kingdoms, a newer historical title set in China they released in 2019 and pre ordered it as well. Total War Shogun 2 released in 2011 which is also not in Europe but East Asia is something i play regularly as well.
@@resileaf9501Says the woke simp 😂
Not sure if I agree that much on the hole idea of the setting not being overly cartoony, but I do agree that it being so heavily character driven isn't a particularly good approach. Another issue I do have with it just how tight the focus for the campaign map is, where its really just Egypt and a thin strip of land following the coast up to and a little way in to Anatolia.
Total War hasn't added a single new idea to the strategy and tactics part of their game. All they've added is better animations, better graphics, better map. There has been no advancement in gameplay. Total War battle gameplay is stuck in Star Craft mode. You have instant, omniscient control over your units. You have perfect vision everywhere. There is no such thing as formations, only spaghetti lines. There is no such thing as officers, lieutenants, brigade commanders, there is no chain of command. It's the furthest it could be from reflecting an army fighting on a battlefield. It's just basically a movie now. Blob click your guys, pop their abilities, watch for 30 seconds, battle over. It might have made me feel like a general when I was 12 years old, but now it just makes me feel like I'm playing a dated series that's been milked dry by developers who don't want to actually introduce substantial new features. Total War is dead to me.
No one asked for this. We asked for a lot of historical settings...but not this.
I never asked for Total War before I discovered the series on Steam. You should be open to discovering new things rather than asking for the same medieval settings. The Bronze Age Collapse has stories to tell you, if you'll only listen to them.
It also seems in my eyes that they are diluting combat lethality. That now with sagas, 3 kingdoms and others the combat isn't as deadly as it was before.
What does that even mean? How is combat less lethal?
@@resileaf9501 In my experience it seems like arrows, cannons and shock cavalry doesn't deal such a massive damage in new titles.
In Empire, Shogun and Medieval when you shot unit with cannon or catapult it was absolutely decimating. One shotting general, killing quarter of unit in a charge or absolutely destroying light infantry with javelins or charging it with heavy infantry in rome was normal. You had to keep eye on every variable.
@@jakubschneer5189 I don't see how things are that different now. Good charges and well-aimed siege weapons still deal massive damage.
Hell, I'd even say that outside of canister shot, Empire cannonshots weren't that deadly either.