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

[DavidtheDuke]

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.

You said siege AI was fine, pretty much everyone disagrees with you here (yes I know you'll say this isn't a good point, but we also couldn't convince you siege AI was broken even when it was blatantly obvious so there's that) and that's why I don't take you seriously wrt to CA and how they show their products. The Carthage demo was not representative of the game at release, Attila's promotion was. The graphics on Attila looked the same on release, the Carthage demo did not look like Rome 2 at releasee much at all. Attila's battles worked fine on release, Rome 2's did not. The Carthage demo "promoted" the idea that you would have the same general experience, just like Attila did. Only Attila delivered. Rome 2's wasn't really like that at all, with regard to bad city pathfinding (particularly bad with Carthage actually at release), AI running through your units to capture a city capture point, graphical crappiness, bla bla.

We did not get SIMILAR things with Rome 2, we got more honest/accurate marketing representation with Attila, aka, more polished/whatever at release like implied via the gameplay demos, unlike Rome 2. I never said they didn't use the same general promotional strategy, just one product wasn't like the other with regard to actual experience.

[PointOfViewGun]

You said siege AI was fine, pretty much everyone disagrees with you here (yes I know you'll say this isn't a good point, but we also couldn't convince you siege AI was broken even when it was blatantly obvious so there's that) and that's why I don't take you seriously wrt to CA and how they show their products. The Carthage demo was not representative of the game at release, Attila's promotion was. The graphics on Attila looked the same on release, the Carthage demo did not look like Rome 2 at releasee much at all. Attila's battles worked fine on release, Rome 2's did not. The Carthage demo "promoted" the idea that you would have the same general experience, just like Attila did. Only Attila delivered. Rome 2's wasn't really like that at all, with regard to bad city pathfinding (particularly bad with Carthage actually at release), AI running through your units to capture a city capture point, graphical crappiness, bla bla.

We did not get SIMILAR things with Rome 2, we got more honest/accurate marketing representation with Attila, aka, more polished/whatever at release like implied via the gameplay demos, unlike Rome 2. I never said they didn't use the same general promotional strategy, just one product wasn't like the other with regard to actual experience.

Nope. I remember specifically calling it buggy as it was with all Total War games. I doubt I ever claimed it to be fine. Especially in the sense you probably using it. However, it was quite stupid to argue that the siege AI is broken at any point since the launch of the game. If fine means playable and enjoyable for you then yes, the game was fine at launch. However, if you're using it to mean that the game would be bug free then no.

Carthage promotional video was representative of the game in many ways, not in some. The part that it wasn't was mostly cosmetic which people later on could attain through mods. However, it never promoted the idea that you would have the same general experience. It was simply provided as a pre-alpha footage to talk about some of the planned aspects of the game. You're just making up yet an other argument. I always wonder why people rely so much on such fallacies.

This arguing as if somehow Rome II was buggy as hell and that Attila is free of any bugs is just laughable at best. People just don't seem to be able to let go an irrational hatred.

You're still relying on your opinion when we're talking about factual aspects. Both games got similar promotion footage, Twitch streams, etc. For Rome II, you can't just rely on the Carthage footage which was way before launch. Many Twitch streams that showed a similar experience to final product happened for both games. Same kind of information were provided with similar accuracy.

[DavidtheDuke]

Carthage promotional video was representative of the game in many ways, not in some.

I"m not going to nitpick here with you like before but it implied many things worked seamless when they didn't. You're even kind of agreeing with me. Pathfinding and horrible siege AI, not even including graphical downgrading. You thinking the siege AI was passable at all makes me take anything you say much less seriously. It was not workable in any enjoyable sense and in practical terms "broken" (it basically didn't work at all for 2 months for me).

The way all this relates to Warhammer is to take anything CA itself shows with a grain of salt, especially in engine displays/demonstrations. None of the things hugely wrong with Rome 2 were shown in the Carthage demo, at best it was deception by omission (intentional or not, probably a bit of both).

But if that's fine with you then okay little buddy.

[PointOfViewGun]

I"m not going to nitpick here with you like before but it implied many things worked seamless when they didn't. You're even kind of agreeing with me. Pathfinding and horrible siege AI, not even including graphical downgrading. You thinking the siege AI was passable at all makes me take anything you say much less seriously. It was not workable in any enjoyable sense and in practical terms "broken" (it basically didn't work at all for 2 months for me).

The way all this relates to Warhammer is to take anything CA itself shows with a grain of salt, especially in engine displays/demonstrations. None of the things hugely wrong with Rome 2 were shown in the Carthage demo, at best it was deception by omission (intentional or not, probably a bit of both).

But if that's fine with you then okay little buddy.

No, it didn't imply many things worked seamless at all. You're just making stuff up. It was a pre-alpha footage that many people correctly labeled it as scripted. You're just whining for no real reason. It's quite pathetic. You also talk as if the Carthage video was the only promotional footage you were given. You were not. You got a number of other videos, chances to play the game yourself and many Twitch streams before the launch. They all demonstrated the bugs that people encountered later on. Even the Carthage video showed some of the points people criticized the game on, such as blobbing, the whole unit stopping abruptly stopping once the first line met the enemy line, etc. No software company will specifically spend time to demonstrate every single bug their software have. To talk as if they should have done just that is simply an idiotic thing to argue. One thing is for sure, the players used hell of a lot more deception then the CA did on the games.

[The Wandering Storyteller]

No, it didn't imply many things worked seamless at all. You're just making stuff up. It was a pre-alpha footage that many people correctly labeled it as scripted. You're just whining for no real reason. It's quite pathetic. You also talk as if the Carthage video was the only promotional footage you were given. You were not. You got a number of other videos, chances to play the game yourself and many Twitch streams before the launch. They all demonstrated the bugs that people encountered later on. Even the Carthage video showed some of the points people criticized the game on, such as blobbing, the whole unit stopping abruptly stopping once the first line met the enemy line, etc. No software company will specifically spend time to demonstrate every single bug their software have. To talk as if they should have done just that is simply an idiotic thing to argue. One thing is for sure, the players used hell of a lot more deception then the CA did on the games.

So you are saying the players decieved themselves and CA didn't?

[nosuchname]

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.
I disagree, collision is still bad, units walking through one another and overall way to much clipping.





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.

[PointOfViewGun]

So you are saying the players decieved themselves and CA didn't?

Nope. I'm saying that some players try to deceive others because they didn't like the game (though some still played it over a hundred hours so perhaps some deceived themselves too) and they were unable to look at it objectively, and CA didn't.

[nosuchname]

but i guess clipping is much worse in napoleon and empire so it has gotten a little bit better but no enough in my opinion

[DavidtheDuke]

No, it didn't imply many things worked seamless at all. You're just making stuff up. It was a pre-alpha footage that many people correctly labeled it as scripted. You're just whining for no real reason. It's quite pathetic. You also talk as if the Carthage video was the only promotional footage you were given. You were not. You got a number of other videos, chances to play the game yourself and many Twitch streams before the launch. They all demonstrated the bugs that people encountered later on. Even the Carthage video showed some of the points people criticized the game on, such as blobbing, the whole unit stopping abruptly stopping once the first line met the enemy line, etc. No software company will specifically spend time to demonstrate every single bug their software have. To talk as if they should have done just that is simply an idiotic thing to argue. One thing is for sure, the players used hell of a lot more deception then the CA did on the games.

Yes, it did imply. You saying it didn't when it implied many things working in the demo (city pathfinding and AI definitely didn't work wrt to the AI at launch), doesn't mean it doesn't. I'm not going to watch every stream and iota of information and watch for bugs that I couldn't see myself. The blobbing issue was shown yes (never said it wasn't), but the pathfinding and AI (particularly in Carthage, too, actually) issues were never shown as far as I could remember anyway, which is what I've been saying the whole time. I'm sure there's going to be many things wrong with Warhammer TW that won't be shown in their gameplay exhibitions that people are going to hate. This is what I'm trying to tell people, whether you think that is reasonable for a game company to display or not: Misrepresentation by omission or outright inaccuracy.

So you are saying the players decieved themselves and CA didn't?

Setekh thinks they handled everything perfectly and nothing was exaggerated or overblown. He'll never say otherwise (yes I know Setekh you have Super Good Rational Reasons for all your positions, thanks). Oh, they didn't handle everything perfectly Setekh? Yes, I knew you were going to say that. Thanks.

http://images.akamai.steamusercontent.com/ugc/708528752808703312/FFF0C9FB9022C418016FED99CBE8875CD65E966C/

That's not really a good demostration of bad unit mass mechanics, sorry.

[PointOfViewGun]

Yes, it did imply. You saying it didn't when it implied many things working in the demo (city pathfinding and AI definitely didn't work wrt to the AI at launch), doesn't mean it doesn't. I'm not going to watch every stream and iota of information and watch for bugs that I couldn't see myself. The blobbing issue was shown yes (never said it wasn't), but the pathfinding and AI (particularly in Carthage, too, actually) issues were never shown as far as I could remember anyway, which is what I've been saying the whole time. I'm sure there's going to be many things wrong with Warhammer TW that won't be shown in their gameplay exhibitions that people are going to hate. This is what I'm trying to tell people, whether you think that is reasonable for a game company to display or not: Misrepresentation by omission or outright inaccuracy.

Setekh thinks they handled everything perfectly and nothing was exaggerated or overblown. He'll never say otherwise (yes I know Setekh you have Super Good Rational Reasons for all your positions, thanks). Oh, they didn't handle everything perfectly Setekh? Yes, I knew you were going to say that. Thanks.

Oh wow... Everyone knew day one that it was scripted video. If I dig enough I bet I'd find you talking about the video being scripted. People didn't think that the AI worked seamlessly when they watched that video. You did say that the blobbing was not shown as you said none was shown. You know what the word "none" means, right? Many Twitch sessions that showed actual gameplay showed bugs. Heck, even reviews by major magazines pointed at many of those bugs. Your case is so bad that right now you're arguing that they didn't spoon feed you the bugs their software had, a feat no company ever does. Well, what can one say against that?

You're putting words in my mouth and then joking about it. Lovely and pathetic. No, I never argued that they handled everything perfectly. This post simply caricatures your failure to come up with a rational criticism. Thanks for that.

[nosuchname]

Yes, it did imply. You saying it didn't when it implied many things working in the demo (city pathfinding and AI definitely didn't work wrt to the AI at launch), doesn't mean it doesn't. I'm not going to watch every stream and iota of information and watch for bugs that I couldn't see myself. The blobbing issue was shown yes (never said it wasn't), but the pathfinding and AI (particularly in Carthage, too, actually) issues were never shown as far as I could remember anyway, which is what I've been saying the whole time. I'm sure there's going to be many things wrong with Warhammer TW that won't be shown in their gameplay exhibitions that people are going to hate. This is what I'm trying to tell people, whether you think that is reasonable for a game company to display or not: Misrepresentation by omission or outright inaccuracy.



Setekh thinks they handled everything perfectly and nothing was exaggerated or overblown. He'll never say otherwise (yes I know Setekh you have Super Good Rational Reasons for all your positions, thanks). Oh, they didn't handle everything perfectly Setekh? Yes, I knew you were going to say that. Thanks.





That's not really a good demostration of bad unit mass mechanics, sorry.

this was not a demonstration of the bad mass units mechanics in the first place. I was only showing that there is way to much clipping in this game.
clipping is just as a big issue as collision

[HigoChumbo]

Guys, it's not even going to be gameplay.

It's an in-engine trailer. At E3 they admited that it was all scripted, that they were not showing AI. I don't think that has changed a lot in a few weeks. But in any case, "in-engine" is the only proof you should need not to take the video too seriously other than go get a bit hyped with some eye-candy. At least this time around they are clearly calling stuff by its name.

[DavidtheDuke]

Oh wow... Everyone knew day one that it was scripted video. If I dig enough I bet I'd find you talking about the video being scripted. People didn't think that the AI worked seamlessly when they watched that video. You did say that the blobbing was not shown as you said none was shown. You know what the word "none" means, right? Many Twitch sessions that showed actual gameplay showed bugs. Heck, even reviews by major magazines pointed at many of those bugs. Your case is so bad that right now you're arguing that they didn't spoon feed you the bugs their software had, a feat no company ever does. Well, what can one say against that?

You're putting words in my mouth and then joking about it. Lovely and pathetic. No, I never argued that they handled everything perfectly. This post simply caricatures your failure to come up with a rational criticism. Thanks for that.

Where did I say blobbing? If I did, it never was the biggest issue.

You're just going to say they didn't show pathfinding faults or AI and because they didn't explicitly say they would work, so that's okay. You didn't even address those two things like I figured you wouldn't. Even if I accept all your points it still shows they put very pretty lipstick on a pig, which, again, is all I'm saying they may do with Warhammer.

You'd probably be fine if tanks didn't even move in BF4 because the demo was either scripted or there were no tanks in the trailer so even if they are in the game and are clearly meant to roll wrt to game mechanics it doesn't matter because they didn't show that in the marketing material!

[PointOfViewGun]

Where did I say blobbing? If I did, it never was the biggest issue.

You're just going to say they didn't show pathfinding faults or AI and because they didn't explicitly say they would work, so that's okay. You didn't even address those two things like I figured you wouldn't. Even if I accept all your points it still shows they put very pretty lipstick on a pig, which, again, is all I'm saying they may do with Warhammer.

You'd probably be fine if tanks didn't even move in BF4 because the demo was either scripted or there were no tanks in the trailer so even if they are in the game and are clearly meant to roll wrt to game mechanics it doesn't matter because they didn't show that in the marketing material!

Ah, so now the blobbing is a minor issue. Lovely...

Carthage was a scripted battle scene with a voice over talking about the game. Heck, it even started with a cinematic scene. You've seen pathfinding/AI issues in Twitch streams, or when they had people come over to their booth to play the game, or when you read about the game from a preview.

You really have no case here.

[DavidtheDuke]

Ah, so now the blobbing is a minor issue. Lovely...

Carthage was a scripted battle scene with a voice over talking about the game. Heck, it even started with a cinematic scene. You've seen pathfinding/AI issues in Twitch streams, or when they had people come over to their booth to play the game, or when you read about the game from a preview.

You really have no case here.

You're not going to address my actual point, you're just trying to make a legal case that CA Didn't Do Anything. Can you please tell me why no one noticed pathfinding and AI (let alone everything else) wasn't found before release? Like I said: They put alot of makeup on something many people ended up not liking until they fixed the issues people had with the game. I don't care if you find that misrepresentation or not. If there wasn't even literally any AI at all when the game was released (there kind of wasn't, in fact it was kind of anti-AI in that it suicided through your troops to capture points), would you say that was fine because all the stuff before didn't demonstrate AI or explicitly state there wasn't AI? That's all I'm getting from you.

I don't remember mentioning blobbing, as it wasn't much of an issue with me. I just ctrl-f-ed the thread and I can't even find myself mentioning it. Can you? Almost feels like you put words in my mouth?

[PointOfViewGun]

You're not going to address my actual point, you're just trying to make a legal case that CA Didn't Do Anything. Can you please tell me why no one noticed pathfinding and AI (let alone everything else) wasn't found before release? Like I said: They put alot of makeup on something many people ended up not liking until they fixed the issues people had with the game. I don't care if you find that misrepresentation or not. If there wasn't even literally any AI at all when the game was released (there kind of wasn't, in fact it was kind of anti-AI in that it suicided through your troops to capture points), would you say that was fine because all the stuff before didn't demonstrate AI or explicitly state there wasn't AI? That's all I'm getting from you.

I don't remember mentioning blobbing, as it wasn't much of an issue with me. I just ctrl-f-ed the thread and I can't even find myself mentioning it. Can you?

If by legal case you mean I'm sticking to facts, yes, I am doing just that. Let me quote two previews:

IGN:

For the sake of all that it gets right, I'm generally tolerant of some of the interface issues, but wonky pathfinding and poor strategic and tactical AI, particularly with smaller forces and sieges, are more annoying, even if they're less persistent. I've laughed as recently ousted armies batter themselves against my walls as individual units rather than wait for nearby reinforcements. I've cursed as my spearmen ignore a wide-open gate right in front of them and raced instead for a different gate on the other side of the enemy fort. These types of things don't happen every time, but they do happen, and can ruin an otherwise enjoyable turn.

PC Gamer:

I've had three major coastal siege battles in which I've had to sit back, fast-forward the battle and let the 60 minute timer tick down to gain an automatic siege-defence victory against a frozen AI opponent. The severity of the problem seems to vary greatly depending on the map you're fighting on.

These were part of the promotional campaign and such sources only got harsher after the launch. Twitch streams also showed many of these bugs.

Sigh. You're hellbent on making a mountain out of a molehill. You take one bug and talk as if that's all the game is about. It's not... If you talk about the game almost not having an AI at launch don't expect anyone to respect your opinion... Your actual point was that their promotion campaign for Attila was different which you failed to produce any concrete points on.

You practically did include blobbing when you said that none of the major issues was shown on the video. Do you need me to quote that? Or tell you what the word "none" means? But of course, blobbing, magically became a minor issue for you...

[DavidtheDuke]

If by legal case you mean I'm sticking to facts, yes, I am doing just that. Let me quote two previews:

IGN:


PC Gamer:


These were part of the promotional campaign and such sources only got harsher after the launch. Twitch streams also showed many of these bugs.

Sigh. You're hellbent on making a mountain out of a molehill. You take one bug and talk as if that's all the game is about. It's not... If you talk about the game almost not having an AI at launch don't expect anyone to respect your opinion... Your actual point was that their promotion campaign for Attila was different which you failed to produce any concrete points on.

Game media is not CA. I had stupidly preordered.

And it wasn't just a single bug (siege AI didn't work in many ways, freezing was actually kind of rare, too), nor was it not important, it basically made walled settlements invincible against AI (hell even non walled ones were easy to defend when they'd almost always ran through your men to the capture points). Pathfinding and AI, not counting every thing else, basically did not work. Expecting people to scour the net formedia reviews bla bla bla to find contradictions is not the point nor should it be expected: I'm saying never believe what CA or promotional material shows you because it's at best incomplete presentation of something that could be broken in many ways not presented. This goes for Warhammer and whatever else they're purporting is so awesome, It's all puffing, as you'd probably like to say.

And I'd say huge number would agree with me attacking siege AI basically was useless and didn't exist in at least the first few months at release. We should assume nothing will work well with Warhammer either.

You practically did include blobbing when you said that none of the major issues was shown on the video. Do you need me to quote that? Or tell you what the word "none" means? But of course, blobbing, magically became a minor issue for you...

Did I even ever talk about blobbing with you, even from way back? I said none of the major issues that I spoke about. Besides, that's only one issue that you can take home and pet nicely if you like. I think you're a little too practiced in your defense of CA that it's starting to blur into other people. Please stick to the legal facts that I personally debated Setekh! Lest you become a caricature like you say I am.

[Frost-Byte]

Guys, it's not even going to be gameplay.

It's an in-engine trailer. At E3 they admited that it was all scripted, that they were not showing AI. I don't think that has changed a lot in a few weeks. But in any case, "in-engine" is the only proof you should need not to take the video too seriously other than go get a bit hyped with some eye-candy. At least this time around they are clearly calling stuff by its name.

Eh, I bet the AI is currently ass. And I don't have much hope for launch because of the following;

AI has never been very good
AI now has to deal with spells and incorporate them into there strategies
AI now has to deal with flying units and incorporate them into overall strategy
AI now has to deal with Spells and Flying units being used against them, and react in some way
As if the above wasn't enough, each faction has a very specialized focus. Dwarves are small hard hitters, greenskins overwhelm with brute force, Vampire counts use cannon fodder to shield powerful vampires, and Empire makes extensive use of knights, magic, and artillery with gunpowder weapons.

And, AND CA's launches are particularly unstable and disastrous, Sigmar help us all.

[DavidtheDuke]

Eh, I bet the AI is currently ass. And I don't have much hope for launch because of the following;

AI has never been very good
AI now has to deal with spells and incorporate them into there strategies
AI now has to deal with flying units and incorporate them into overall strategy
AI now has to deal with Spells and Flying units being used against them, and react in some way
As if the above wasn't enough, each faction has a very specialized focus. Dwarves are small hard hitters, greenskins overwhelm with brute force, Vampire counts use cannon fodder to shield powerful vampires, and Empire makes extensive use of knights, magic, and artillery with gunpowder weapons.

And, AND CA's launches are particularly unstable and disastrous, Sigmar help us all.

Yeah, its hard to imagine this working hardly at all considering all the new situations and specialized factions. We'll see organized Empire battle lines and intelligently used Deathclaws in the trailer but I'd expect the AI to just throw everything at the wall, even the supposedly civilized empire acting just like orcs . At least for the first two games or so.

[nosuchname]

and duke if you really wanna see evidence of bad unit collision, try running the benchmark and at the end of the benchmark you will see how those units just slide into one another. why dont you just admit the bad unit collision i atilla, even though the game is quite fun to play, it is always worth to mention its flaws