patch 1.2 NO JOKE!

[Immacolata]

Originally Posted by Coldcall

Actually the Total War games were relatively clean up to ETW. I thought both RTW and MTW were excellent even though for the few bugs.

But yeah ETW is just a crap/buggy game in my opinion.

Which is why I skipped ETW. As well as SH5. Some people say that with Napoleon "paid patch" its a lot better. But many years of exposure to SEGA CA BS radiation has made my bones and marrow brittle. White & Sea I say.

[DragonRR1]

Originally Posted by Immacolata

Which is why I skipped ETW. As well as SH5. Some people say that with Napoleon "paid patch" its a lot better. But many years of exposure to SEGA CA BS radiation has made my bones and marrow brittle. White & Sea I say.

I'm quite a fan of the newer Total Wars although ETW was (imo) much more bug riddled than SH5. NTW is apparently quite bug free. However when I got it, I did a quick skirmish map. Enemy cannons were attacking me through the ground (I was lower) and enemy troops couldn't get out of the fort. Good start!

These days there's hardly a game released that doesn't require at least 2 patches to get it up to non-beta. Even console games need patches!

[Coldcall]

Originally Posted by Immacolata

Which is why I skipped ETW. As well as SH5. Some people say that with Napoleon "paid patch" its a lot better. But many years of exposure to SEGA CA BS radiation has made my bones and marrow brittle. White & Sea I say.

What really got me about ETW was the terrible graphics quality of infantry units. They seriously looked like something out of a 90s game.

I shelved ETW and went back to the RTW Roma Surrectum mod. much better allround.

[Nordmann]

Originally Posted by Coldcall

What really got me about ETW was the terrible graphics quality of infantry units. They seriously looked like something out of a 90s game.

I shelved ETW and went back to the RTW Roma Surrectum mod. much better allround.

I'm curious as to what system and settings you are running Empire on, because I can assure you, the units do not look like something from a 90s game! That would be Rome, if anything.

I think some people have forgotten how terrible games from the 90s actually look.

[Laffertytig]

Originally Posted by Coldcall

Actually the Total War games were relatively clean up to ETW. I thought both RTW and MTW were excellent even though for the few bugs.

But yeah ETW is just a crap/buggy game in my opinion.

not trytin to go off topic here but you really gotta try NTW. its miles better than ETW

[Coldcall]

Originally Posted by Nordmann

I'm curious as to what system and settings you are running Empire on, because I can assure you, the units do not look like something from a 90s game! That would be Rome, if anything.

I think some people have forgotten how terrible games from the 90s actually look.

Last year i was using a late 2007 rig, 2 Gig ram, GT 8600, duo core E???, cant remmber the exact processor. But it ran most 2009 games pretty well other than sometimnes having to settle for lower res.

I just found the graphics and animations way better in RTW and MTW. Of course i played RTW and MTW modded but i gave up with ETW after about 2 hours.

[Coldcall]

Originally Posted by Laffertytig

not trytin to go off topic here but you really gotta try NTW. its miles better than ETW

Whats NTW? Is it a modded version?

[Nemesis43]

http://www.totalwar.com/napoleon/?t=EnglishUK

[Immacolata]

Originally Posted by DragonRR1

I'm quite a fan of the newer Total Wars although ETW was (imo) much more bug riddled than SH5. NTW is apparently quite bug free. However when I got it, I did a quick skirmish map. Enemy cannons were attacking me through the ground (I was lower) and enemy troops couldn't get out of the fort. Good start!

These days there's hardly a game released that doesn't require at least 2 patches to get it up to non-beta. Even console games need patches!

That is all fair and dandy I guess. Or not. As long as the business models can sustain me waiting for them to get their crap together. Ie. pay for their game when it is 1) discounted and 2) patched up. It must make business sense, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. Or what? If everyone else does, why not us?

Last game I played from start to end without a patch was ... was ... GTAIV for PS3. IT probably had bugs too, but you could live with them. But a PC game? Beats me. Im not sure it is at this side of the year 2000!

[DragonRR1]

Originally Posted by Immacolata

That is all fair and dandy I guess. Or not. As long as the business models can sustain me waiting for them to get their crap together. Ie. pay for their game when it is 1) discounted and 2) patched up. It must make business sense, otherwise they wouldn't be doing it. Or what? If everyone else does, why not us?

Last game I played from start to end without a patch was ... was ... GTAIV for PS3. IT probably had bugs too, but you could live with them. But a PC game? Beats me. Im not sure it is at this side of the year 2000!

The situation with patches is ridiculous. No game should actually NEED a patch at release. However the reality is that release dates cannot be delayed without potentially enormous costs to re-marketing, missing disk duplication schedules, missing release windows with competing products and so on. Only the very largest quadruple A titles can be on a "when it's ready" schedule. Software programming almost always overruns so if it isn't ready they cut features, stop bug fixing, and rely on patches.

I'm only waiting for 1 patch this time....just one....the one that removes DRM/OSP/BOLOX.

Any other patch is pure academia to me....sigh

[Nordmann]

Originally Posted by Uber Gruber

I'm only waiting for 1 patch this time....just one....the one that removes DRM/OSP/BOLOX.

Any other patch is pure academia to me....sigh

I have a feeling it isn't going to happen any time this year, if ever. To remove the OSP would be admitting that it was a failure, and very rarely do companies admit that they were wrong. Your best bet is to do what I have decided to do, and that is to wait for the price to come down to something more in keeping with the game's restrictions. About £10 or £12 seems fitting.

At least that way, you haven't wasted too much money on a product which needs a lot of work, and is not always accessible (server downtime).

[Immacolata]

Originally Posted by DragonRR1

The situation with patches is ridiculous. No game should actually NEED a patch at release. However the reality is that release dates cannot be delayed without potentially enormous costs to re-marketing, missing disk duplication schedules, missing release windows with competing products and so on. Only the very largest quadruple A titles can be on a "when it's ready" schedule. Software programming almost always overruns so if it isn't ready they cut features, stop bug fixing, and rely on patches.

Look at the japanese game develeopers. They create games which are Possible. Thats why they succeed. Also they are a bit more focussed on QA. Or is it planning? In either case, they dont overextend themselves.

Now look at americans and europeans. Still infatuated with sandbox games, multiple paths. Enormous complexity. The reason games get so buggy is that developers are too ambitious. They want too many things, and that kills off a lot.

Now, in the genre of simulation you will end up killing yourself because everyone keeps demanding more detail. more realism. Better modelling. And you just can't pull it off as you would like to.

When simulations come from japan, they are much more narrow. Gran Turismo is, if you compare it to SH5 og IL-2, ever so much smaller in scope. That allows for much better execution.

So patching will be needed as long as we create - and demand - ginormous open ended sand box worlds. That or a ridiculous amount of QA pre-launch.

[Immacolata]

Originally Posted by Coldcall

Whats NTW? Is it a modded version?

You could say that ... Expandalone I think they call it. Pay-for-patch+content.

[Bilge_Rat]

Originally Posted by Immacolata

Look at the japanese game develeopers. They create games which are Possible. Thats why they succeed. Also they are a bit more focussed on QA. Or is it planning? In either case, they dont overextend themselves.

Now look at americans and europeans. Still infatuated with sandbox games, multiple paths. Enormous complexity. The reason games get so buggy is that developers are too ambitious. They want too many things, and that kills off a lot.

Now, in the genre of simulation you will end up killing yourself because everyone keeps demanding more detail. more realism. Better modelling. And you just can't pull it off as you would like to.

When simulations come from japan, they are much more narrow. Gran Turismo is, if you compare it to SH5 og IL-2, ever so much smaller in scope. That allows for much better execution.

So patching will be needed as long as we create - and demand - ginormous open ended sand box worlds. That or a ridiculous amount of QA pre-launch.

Good point.

Falcon 4 is a good example of that. It was very ambitious with a fully dynamic campaign, but had major issues when it was released in 1999. It took multiple patches, supermods and a re-release as F4AF in 2005 before most of the real bugs were resolved.

Combat Mission:Shock Force is another example. It is a very ambitious open ended land combat simulation with a fully detailed 3d environment. It had major issues when it was released in 2007, but after multiple patches and addons is now the gold standard for that type of sims. Of course Battlefront is a company that cares about its products and takes the time and effort to correct all the bugs. It's too bad they don't do sub sims..