"Where is the promised gameplay footage!!!!1!!!" Thread

[PointOfViewGun]

Oh it was represenative. I had a look at the script E3 file on Attila TED, which was 8 x 8 for the battle map. In fact it didn't stretch the machine. The Carthage we got was a smaller dumbed down version. Having a look at the wiki page, Carthage was going to bigger, but I don't know what happened and we ended up with small city.

The Carthage we got from the promotional video is roughly the same size as the Carthage we can get in the final game with the city fully upgraded.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

The Carthage we got from the promotional video is roughly the same size as the Carthage we can get in the final game with the city fully upgraded.

No you cannot. The way the map has been made, only half a fraction has been taken from its promotional video. You will never get the full city. I have attempted many times to do this but the way the city is designed, very unlikely.

Show me some screenshots of where it can roughly compare to the Alpha one and that's my opinion changed. But you cannot.

Edit: I'll stop because the discussion is being off topic.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Wait, What, Holy ? Here's a bunch of off-topicish questions;

1; You extracted the E3 script or map? both?
2; So the TeD can edit scrits?
3; 8x8, what does that mean? The amount of possible players, size, wut!?
4; So the original map wasn't even that performance intensive? What the actual ?
5; Could it be possible that the script was purely a visual demo, as in it wasn't being run on consumer grade awful warscape engine? Cuz it sounds like they took this amazing map, then threw it through warscape, and realized " this broke it, lets dumb it down!"

I'll answer you on PM.

[PointOfViewGun]

No you cannot. The way the map has been made, only half a fraction has been taken from its promotional video. You will never get the full city. I have attempted many times to do this but the way the city is designed, very unlikely.

Show me some screenshots of where it can roughly compare to the Alpha one and that's my opinion changed. But you cannot.

Edit: I'll stop because the discussion is being off topic.

I have proven this in threads before with screenshots. You can easily see it for yourself. Custom Battle -> City Assault -> Carthago -> Extra Large Settlement Size. Result: Picture 1, Picture 2, Picture 3. So, no, the size of the city didn't change much since that promotional video. People should be careful about their claims.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

I have proven this in threads before with screenshots. You can easily see it for yourself. Custom Battle -> City Assault -> Carthago -> Extra Large Settlement Size. Result: Picture 1, Picture 2, Picture 3. So, no, the size of the city didn't change much since that promotional video. People should be careful about their claims.

Not true.

To show you what I mean:

http://www.pictureshack.us/images/73...old_vs_new.jpg

The second picture above shows how much has been cut, and how much has been taken out of it. Putting in no matter whatever settlement you want to put, will not change the way the city has been designed.

You will never get the full version. Nothing what you saw in the promotional video will be there.

[PointOfViewGun]

Not true.
To show you what I mean:
http://www.pictureshack.us/images/73...old_vs_new.jpg
The second picture above shows how much has been cut, and how much has been taken out of it. Putting in no matter whatever settlement you want to put, will not change the way the city has been designed.
You will never get the full version. Nothing what you saw in the promotional video will be there.

Wrong. You're trying put everything in the same place. They're not. You have to look at the overall picture. All the parts that seems to be cut are from to the right side of the harbour which wasn't accessible for any troops. Check video between 4:50 and 5:05. The final game map allows troops to be disembarked to the right side of the harbour and there is a gate there to breach which the promotional video doesn't have. The map in the promotional video doesn't allow you to enter the city from that side. Both map tiles are same in size. The promotional city map has perhaps at most a 10% larger city size if we consider the area inside the outer walls of the city. However, the final game map, has perhaps 10% more area inside the city walls that troops can use. All in all, the city size difference between the two is trivial which makes the criticism of it seem as nothing more than senseless nagging.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

Wrong. You're trying put everything in the same place. They're not. You have to look at the overall picture. All the parts that seems to be cut are from to the right side of the harbour which wasn't accessible for any troops. Check video between 4:50 and 5:05. The final game map allows troops to be disembarked to the right side of the harbour and there is a gate there to breach which the promotional video doesn't have. The map in the promotional video doesn't allow you to enter the city from that side. Both map tiles are same in size. The promotional city map has perhaps at most a 10% larger city size if we consider the area inside the outer walls of the city. However, the final game map, has perhaps 10% more area inside the city walls that troops can use. All in all, the city size difference between the two is trivial which makes the criticism of it seem as nothing more than senseless nagging.

At this rate we can argue whether it was really cut or not. The parts that are cut are cut. There's no 10 per cent of everything. I don't agree with you that we got the full siege.

[Frost-Byte]

Eh this thread has already been derailed (admitedly with my help) and tommorow it's existence is going to be pointless, so yeah mods go ahead and lock it if you please.

[DavidtheDuke]

At this rate we can argue whether it was really cut or not. The parts that are cut are cut. There's no 10 per cent of everything. I don't agree with you that we got the full siege.

I don't even really debate the size of the settlement (never bothered me), just the graphics and the unsaid (though not explicitly) that they weren't fighting AI and that we wouldn't have that level of AI for about 4-5+ months after release. It looked fairly bug free compared to the game we got which is what most people were upset about, I never minded the sizes much myself, even if they were different.

Oh it was represenative. I had a look at the script E3 file on Attila TED, which was 8 x 8 for the battle map. In fact it didn't stretch the machine. The Carthage we got was a smaller dumbed down version. Having a look at the wiki page, Carthage was going to bigger, but I don't know what happened and we ended up with small city.

Whether or not they didn't do it on purpose or something really doesn't bother me, it's just Carthage never really ever looked much like their "pre-alpha, it's gonna look even better than this!" claim. It was just the final nail in the don't preorder-unless-you-can-get-a-refund-coffin, for what that's worth.

I think all this talk is pretty relevant to Warhammer, btw. The gameplay trailer should never be considered at all representative of the release version, they only show the best aspects.

[nosuchname]

Ca has always been deceptive about most aspect. Their moderators are deleting most of criticism that is being posted in their offical forum. You cant even talk about the system requirements in the warhammer sub forum without having the thread moved and closed. However, I will still continue to buy their games, but that doesn't mean I like them. Ca=dice similar to sega=ea

[DavidtheDuke]

Ca has always been deceptive about most aspect. Their moderators are deleting most of criticism that is being posted in their offical forum. You cant even talk about the system requirements in the warhammer sub forum without having the thread moved and closed. However, I will still continue to buy their games, but that doesn't mean I like them. Ca=dice similar to sega=ea

Eh, you have to like them at least a good bit to buy them though. Also, Attila seemed to be fairly represented, I think they've learned a little. We should never have high expectations, even if they say it's awesome and that we should, because then open to their puffery once again.

[PointOfViewGun]

Eh, you have to like them at least a good bit to buy them though. Also, Attila seemed to be fairly represented, I think they've learned a little. We should never have high expectations, even if they say it's awesome and that we should, because then open to their puffery once again.

They didn't do a single thing different. You get similar amounts of promotional videos, closed beta sessions and Twitch streams. What was different for Attila? It was more polished. So when the laziness of buyers produced less non-satisfactory points people liked it more.

[panzerschreck]

No news today, i was hoping a rally point, it's a bit long, 2 or three screenshots would be nice if we can't have this damn video!

[DavidtheDuke]

They didn't do a single thing different. You get similar amounts of promotional videos, closed beta sessions and Twitch streams. What was different for Attila? It was more polished. So when the laziness of buyers produced less non-satisfactory points people liked it more.

They did lots different, like the Attila gameplay siege they first introduced looked like what I've played recently. I never saw a siege in Carthage that looked similar to their pre-alpha footage (especially in the first few months) to what I got in Rome 2 myself. Attila's siege was very similar to waht I've played nearly on release. But you're just going to disagree with me anyway so I'm talking through you to other people anyway (I don't take you very seriously anymore, and especially now since you didn't even address my position of the differences, and just stated "it's da same"). That or basically "it was more polished" was my point, Rome 2 wasn't polished, it was 200 grit sandpaper with spikes and holes on it, Attila was even rough a bit.

No news today, i was hoping a rally point, it's a bit long, 2 or three screenshots would be nice if we can't have this damn video!

We got the comicc con thing tommorow actually, that's probably what you're looking for. I hope it's not like E3 where basically nothing new is learned, but it sounds a bit more like they have something bigger planned for this weekend than last time.

[nosuchname]

proper collision is something which we will never see ever fixed, i am sure about that. I really hate when units go through one another its immersion breaking for someone who likes to zoom in a lot

[scoicarius]

proper collision is something which we will never see ever fixed, i am sure about that. I really hate when units go through one another its immersion breaking for someone who likes to zoom in a lot

I'm also inclined to think collision will never get fixed. That's why I don't like to zoom in on the action, and prefer to see it from above.

[PointOfViewGun]

They did lots different, like the Attila gameplay siege they first introduced looked like what I've played recently. I never saw a siege in Carthage that looked similar to their pre-alpha footage (especially in the first few months) to what I got in Rome 2 myself. Attila's siege was very similar to waht I've played nearly on release. But you're just going to disagree with me anyway so I'm talking through you to other people anyway (I don't take you very seriously anymore, and especially now since you didn't even address my position of the differences, and just stated "it's da same"). That or basically "it was more polished" was my point, Rome 2 wasn't polished, it was 200 grit sandpaper with spikes and holes on it, Attila was even rough a bit.

You're still not telling me what they did differently. You're just talking about how the end-result was more closer to the hype in your opinion. So, there wasn't really much to address in your post other than your claim.

[DavidtheDuke]

I'm also inclined to think collision will never get fixed. That's why I don't like to zoom in on the action, and prefer to see it from above.

Attila doesn't seem that bad to me honestly. It's about as good as Shogun 2 AFAICT and w/ the Ancient Empires mod getting made for Attila we'll probably get the Rome 2 we always wanted, eventually.

Also the gameplay leak from the Warhammer game made collision look like MTW2 (from the little I saw), which is obviously muy bueno.

You're still not telling me what they did differently. You're just talking about how the end-result was more closer to the hype in your opinion. So, there wasn't really much to address in your post other than your claim.

Um, I said graphical fidelity etc and implied smoothness of features (if you didn't catch that...?). We've been over this and how you thought features were just fine on release I thought were broken (aka things were misrepresented, whereas Attila did not feel misrepresented). It's a point of disagreement I only clarify past you since talking to you really doesn't help anything in terms of us two anymore.

[DavidtheDuke]

delete please

[PointOfViewGun]

Um, I said graphical fidelity etc and implied smoothness of features (if you didn't catch that...?). We've been over this and how you thought features were just fine on release I thought were broken (aka things were misrepresented, whereas Attila did not feel misrepresented). It's a point of disagreement I only clarify past you since talking to you really doesn't help anything in terms of us two anymore.

I doubt I ever said that a feature you claimed to be broken was just fine at release (world doesn't exist between fine and broken). That's just you making stuff up about what I argue... You responded to a post on promotion of the game in a thread about the promotion of the game. So, you're supposed to come up with something relevant to that. Simply saying that the end product was more satisfactory doesn't cut it. That's why I pointed out that they didn't do anything differently with Attila in the context of promoting the game. You got similar kinds of everything Rome II had.