Concern Over TW's Growing Lack of Interest in Historical Accuracy And Bad Battle Animations

[Lugotorix]

In terms of scope, the problem is that the playable map was cropped for some inexplicable reason. We know there will be Assyrians, and they will have settlements, so why on earth would they exclude the Assyrian heartland? We know there will be Achaens and Phrygians, as well as Cyprus, and I'd suppose Minoans in a DLC, so why on earth would they limit the scope of the map to not include them? I could have entirely forgiven the exclusion of Mycenae, because it's not so relevant to the setting, but all this seems like skimping. People didn't pay for a saga, they paid for a full era game. Realistically, they're paying more than for full era games of the past.

[PikeStance]

The character divisions of this particular title reminds me of the divisions we had back in Rome I for Roman factions.

Rome II also had internal factions. I actually do not mind this in the least. It creates more interesting play through where you needed to balance internal power struggles.

The character focus i am referring to is two fold. One is the emphasis on a leader rather than a leader. This made some sense in 3k because that was an internal power struggle. The second aspect is the traits of the characters.... character building. I have spent way too much time clicking traits. It is boring and it is traits best to be random based on how you use the character. Yes, the character could have random traits to make each one unique. However, if I use them as an admin, then they should gain admin trait, if as a commander, then whatever they do in battle. This "choosing" of traits is too arcade like.

[Welsh Dragon]

Rome II also had internal factions. I actually do not mind this in the least. It creates more interesting play through where you needed to balance internal power struggles.

The character focus i am referring to is two fold. One is the emphasis on a leader rather than a leader. This made some sense in 3k because that was an internal power struggle. The second aspect is the traits of the characters.... character building. I have spent way too much time clicking traits. It is boring and it is traits best to be random based on how you use the character. Yes, the character could have random traits to make each one unique. However, if I use them as an admin, then they should gain admin trait, if as a commander, then whatever they do in battle. This "choosing" of traits is too arcade like.

Pharaoh doesn't have choosing of traits.

Pharaoh characters have three characteristics. Traits, Competencies, and Titles.

Traits are gained automatically through your character's actions and have three levels. They're also paired, almost like two sides of a coin, so as your actions move you towards one they move you away from its opposite, kind of like the old Chivalry/Dread mechanic.

e.g. A character who does a lot of razing and sacking of settlements and shrines may become Barbaric, while one who spends time in regions where buildings are being built may become Civilised. You can only hold one of those two at a time, but your actions can swing your character towards being Barbaric or Civilised over time, meaning character's traits can change through their actions.

Competencies are like the Authority, Cunning, Strength system in some games, though here they are Presence, Fortitude, and Ardour. You get to choose how you spend your competency points when a character's level increases, and each brings with it advantages.

Titles are unlocked through your Competencies, and basically give you certain advantages like Vanguard deployment on particular units or Desert Attrition immunity or reducing the upkeep on ranged units, etc. You initially have 1 slot, but more experienced characters can have up to 4 titles active at a time. These can be swapped in and out, which gives a nice bit of flexibility so you can adapt to a particular situation, playstyle or enemy. They're also faction specific, so the titles Ramesses generals earn will be different to Amenmesses for example.

Finally, each character has a Background such as Grizzled Veteran, Family Man, etc, which decides their initial Competencies and gives them a predisposition to particular Traits.

Together it makes for a system that's a mix of older and newer mechanics. Works quite well in making each general different, the sum of their experiences and education.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[EireEmerald]

Total War is dead, a corpse with the same name but just. Shilling is the primary catalyst that killed it. I miss it. Maybe i am wrong but there is a very large percentage who seem to agree with me. I notice topics discussing this are culled on the subreddit.

[PointOfViewGun]

Total War is dead, a corpse with the same name but just. Shilling is the primary catalyst that killed it. I miss it. Maybe i am wrong but there is a very large percentage who seem to agree with me. I notice topics discussing this are culled on the subreddit. I think that is interesting. CA repeatedly on their fans and expects some of them to wipe them up after and some do by lapping it up

What percentage is that?

[Alwyn]

While I get that some players really don't like the mechanics of newer games (or that newer games are harder to mod), and would have strongly preferred for CA to make more historical games (rather the Warhammer series), I'm still enjoying Total War. I'm having fun as Baktria in Rome II, working my way west to acquire a Black Sea port (for the lucrative trading opportunities) while managing ambitious rival families (to prevent a civil war) and adapting my provinces to become more specialised (to support the higher-tier buildings that a larger empire tends to need).

I'm intrigued by the mechanics of Pharoah which were explained above, and I'd be interested to hear more about the experiences of Pharoah players, who may want to vote in our Total War: Pharoah poll. (I like the sound of Irsu - to me, he sounds a bit like Quark in Deep Space Nine ).

Don't get me wrong, I would have been happy to see an Empire II - which is partly why I enjoy Ultimate Admiral: Age of Sail so much, it shows the sort of game that an Empire II might have been (and might be, if an Empire II ever gets made). Of course, I haven't forgotten that Medieval II fans have been waiting even longer.

I'm impressed by the continuing work of Total War modders - including Sara Temer's Last Alliance Total War, and RafSwi's Extended Factions Mod - and I'm excited to see what modders will continue to do with Rome Remastered.

[Welsh Dragon]

Total War is dead, a corpse with the same name but just. Shilling is the primary catalyst that killed it. I miss it. Maybe i am wrong but there is a very large percentage who seem to agree with me. I notice topics discussing this are culled on the subreddit.

Total War is alive and well, with different games appealing to different parts of the community as has always been the case.

That said, Pharaoh is by far the most traditional historical Total War they've made in years. The campaign mechanics are complex and interesting while the battles are immersive and tactical, with weather and terrain playing an important role. There's a good variety of historical units, with each unit and weapon type having its own strengths, weaknesses, and role on the battlefield, while the fantastical/myth elements that have been a feature of recent games like Warhammer, Troy and Three Kingdoms are absent.

If people actually give the game a go, for example during the Early Access Weekend this weekend past, they'd find there's actually a pretty good, dare I say great, Total War game coming out in 3 days.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

[PikeStance]

Pharaoh doesn't have choosing of traits.

Pharaoh characters have three characteristics. Traits, Competencies, and Titles.....

Well, this is a positive then, thanks for the info. This was never mentioned in the reviews.

Total War is alive and well, with different games appealing to different parts of the community as has always been the case.

That said, Pharaoh is by far the most traditional historical Total War they've made in years. The campaign mechanics are complex and interesting while the battles are immersive and tactical, with weather and terrain playing an important role. There's a good variety of historical units, with each unit and weapon type having its own strengths, weaknesses, and role on the battlefield, while the fantastical/myth elements that have been a feature of recent games like Warhammer, Troy and Three Kingdoms are absent.

If people stopped moaning long enough to actually give the game a go, for example during the Early Access Weekend this weekend past, they'd find there's actually a pretty good, dare I say great, Total War game coming out in 3 days.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

The biggest criticism seems to be the lack of scope, that is the map size. CA doesn't have much of a a track record as of late, 3K and Troy to name two. Some would add ToB, but I actually like the game conceptually.

The game was instantly on my wish list and it is still there. As it is now, the scope is keeping me from spending money on it. Perhaps later, after many reviews are made and if they manage to expand the map and add more factions, then I will consider it.

[EireEmerald]

Total War is alive and well, with different games appealing to different parts of the community as has always been the case.

That said, Pharaoh is by far the most traditional historical Total War they've made in years. The campaign mechanics are complex and interesting while the battles are immersive and tactical, with weather and terrain playing an important role. There's a good variety of historical units, with each unit and weapon type having its own strengths, weaknesses, and role on the battlefield, while the fantastical/myth elements that have been a feature of recent games like Warhammer, Troy and Three Kingdoms are absent.

If people actually give the game a go, for example during the Early Access Weekend this weekend past, they'd find there's actually a pretty good, dare I say great, Total War game coming out in 3 days.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

Welsh Dragon you seem like a nice guy. But i cannot help but notice the regression in quality in the last decade. Please know that i am a Total War acolyte still(played napoleon online for five hours with my friend yesterday) but i cannot play these recent games, they have lost their soul.

The focus on arcadey health bar and stats over tactics. The visual spectacle over substance. It all feels so plastic and superficial now. Egyptian infantry poking the air in front of them while an enemy hittite falls back overy dramatically X 2000. It looks so silly, i cannot invest in the microcosm of this game with these silly battle animations, it is representative of an inherent problem with these games, they do not care anymore. The campaigns are streamlined into brain-dead monotony. You mention the inclusion of weather systems, lad... There was dynamic weather in shogun 1 . Where are the rest of the major civilizations of the bronze age? They gonna charge us 30 dollas to play as the Minoans? Or Mycenaens? Where is the historical accuracy? This looks like a parody of the bronze age, a cartoon. It looks and feels nothing like how the art of that period depicts the time. Look at Minoan art, Assyrian art. Look at how they represented themselves.

Medieval 2 looked better, played better. That was 20 years ago now?
Warhammer started a mass conveyor belt of countless dlcs giving youtube content creators the incentive to appease CA by not criticizing the new releases so they can get early access=more views=financial incentive to not criticise the games. Brand ambassadors. (CAs partnership creator programme)

The new audience for this franchise is nothing but consumers ready to buy a 20 dollar dlc that amounts to nothing more than a power creep stat bonus. The youtuber marketing department did more damage than people realise, they downplayed the rot that was manifesting for years. All while hyping up fast food DLC practices.

The campaign is not complex and 'interesting'. The battles are in no way tactical and immersive compared to older games. It is a shade of older games.

[Flinn]

A friendly reminder to keep it civil and avoid off topic remarks which are not strictly related to TW's games and their mechanics. Thank you.

[PikeStance]

The Terminator is not a big fan of the game.

It does look like a smaller in scope 3K game.

[PointOfViewGun]

3K scope is a big bar to clear.

[Siblesz]

I think any review of the game is only valid after the full release. Let's hope and see that he's wrong and the game is not a 5/10 but at least a 7 or 8/10

[PointOfViewGun]

Looks like from the get go he relies on a false premise. The game is not a bronze age game. It is a Pharaoh focused game, hence the title. It was also never marketed as a big historical all encompassing game. I'd love to see it get expanded but to review a game properly one needs to get the basics right.

[Siblesz]

Also some good reviews:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DzmEe0qemXs

[PikeStance]

Looks like from the get go he relies on a false premise. The game is not a bronze age game. It is a Pharaoh focused game, hence the title. It was also never marketed as a big historical all encompassing game. I'd love to see it get expanded but to review a game properly one needs to get the basics right.

He says it is a Bronze Age game because it is set in the Bronze Age. The game is stylized as a Saga game similar to ToB and Troy when they said they were no longer going to do "saga" games? This is the assumption everyone has stated. I don't know what you mean by "all-encompassing." If it isn't on the scale of 3K, Rome II, or Attila, then what is it? It is not like Shogun. At least Shogun's narrow focus is a given. I mean Egypt was not isolated at all. It had a very detailed trade network.

I am going to hold off until or if they add more factions, etc... There are some interesting mechanics in the game play. It dos seem to be not well executed, but that was true of ToB and I actually liked that game.




------

Here is another review from IGN. More balance, though a grade of 8/10 doesn't seem to match his commentary which is closer to 6/10.

[JaM]

More people play Rome 2 than Pharaoh.. why?? is anybody even surprised? CA shows not only lack of interest in historical accuracy.. they lost interest in what their player base actually wants... Players wanted Medieval 3, Rome 3 or Empire 2... and instead, they got game nobody was asking for...

[ghostinthemaxim]

see below - double post due to editing issue

[ghostinthemaxim]

The thing is that...

- Pharaoh was supposed to be a Troy DLC (suposedly it was meant to be part 2 of a "Bronze Age" trilogy),
- got its SAGA-title taken away for pure marketing reasons,
- is sold as a 60€ full-prize game.

That, together with a lot of gathered frustration of many TW players due to bad business decisions and communication (Hyenas debacle, price tag of Shadows of Change, Rob B. passive-aggressively telling customers to accept their DLC pricing policy or WH3 will die), led to Pharaoh never really having a fair chance at succeeding. And I won't get into the Warhammer 2 engine that just can't handle infantry formation battles - Pharaoh battles consist of nothing much else - well. It's a pity for CA Sofia, who are not to blame, but with 5,424 players at max (Thrones had 22,000) this game is dead on arrival. The only positive take on this for me is that CA hopefully will learn from it.

[Welsh Dragon]

Welsh Dragon you seem like a nice guy. But i cannot help but notice the regression in quality in the last decade. Please know that i am a Total War acolyte still(played napoleon online for five hours with my friend yesterday) but i cannot play these recent games, they have lost their soul.

The focus on arcadey health bar and stats over tactics. The visual spectacle over substance. It all feels so plastic and superficial now. Egyptian infantry poking the air in front of them while an enemy hittite falls back overy dramatically X 2000. It looks so silly, i cannot invest in the microcosm of this game with these silly battle animations, it is representative of an inherent problem with these games, they do not care anymore. The campaigns are streamlined into brain-dead monotony. You mention the inclusion of weather systems, lad... There was dynamic weather in shogun 1 . Where are the rest of the major civilizations of the bronze age? They gonna charge us 30 dollas to play as the Minoans? Or Mycenaens? Where is the historical accuracy? This looks like a parody of the bronze age, a cartoon. It looks and feels nothing like how the art of that period depicts the time. Look at Minoan art, Assyrian art. Look at how they represented themselves.

Medieval 2 looked better, played better. That was 20 years ago now?
Warhammer started a mass conveyor belt of countless dlcs giving youtube content creators the incentive to appease CA by not criticizing the new releases so they can get early access=more views=financial incentive to not criticise the games. Brand ambassadors. (CAs partnership creator programme)

The new audience for this franchise is nothing but consumers ready to buy a 20 dollar dlc that amounts to nothing more than a power creep stat bonus. The youtuber marketing department did more damage than people realise, they downplayed the rot that was manifesting for years. All while hyping up fast food DLC practices.

The campaign is not complex and 'interesting'. The battles are in no way tactical and immersive compared to older games. It is a shade of older games.

I disagree with all of this. I feel that your comments here do not reflect the game I am playing and thoroughly enjoying. As a fellow long time Total War player, going back over 20 years to Medieval 1, I can confidently say that in my view this is one of the best games in the series. The campaign is complex, the battles strategic, the passion for the setting and attention to detail in reflecting it clear to see. If, based on your experiences of playing the game you feel differently, then I respect that.

You question why the game does not look like Minoan or Assyrian art, the answer is likely because the styles seems to be based upon the artwork of the cultures actually present in the game, namely the Egyptians, Hittites, and Canaanites, and incorporates elements of their cultures.

All that said, and out of respect for Flinn and the other moderators, I do not feel it is in either of our best interests to continue this discussion. Our view are very different on this subject it is clear and we are unlikely to change each other's minds.

I hope that you will find games you enjoy playing as much as I am enjoying Pharaoh, and that you have a good day.

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.