Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[BFEL]

Thanks Mech.
It didn't fucking work of course, because I can't be happy, but thanks for taking time out of your day to try.

@umiman
Don't know what I did to piss you off, but sorry I guess.

[Mech#4]

News on Warhammer: Total War;

Release date has been moved back a month until the 24th of May to give time for reviewers to play, as well as work on the game more I assume.

Spoiler: Also: System specifications: (click to show/hide)

PC Minimum Specifications:

[Expected around 15-25 FPS on campaign map and in a 1v1, 20 units vs 20 units battle, default graphics preset set to “Low”]
•Operating System: Windows 7 64Bit
•Processor: Intel® Core™ 2 Duo 3.0Ghz
•RAM: 3GB*
•Hard Drive: 35 GB
•Video Card: (DirectX 11) AMD Radeon HD 5770 1024MB | NVIDIA GTS 450 1024MB | Intel HD4000 @720P

(*)PC integrated graphics chipsets require 4GB ram, e.g. Intel HD series


PC Recommended Specifications:

[Expected around 45-55 FPS on campaign map and in a 1v1, 20 units vs 20 units battle, default graphics preset set to “High”]
•Operating System: Windows 7/8.1/10 64Bit
•Processor: Intel® Core™ i5-4570 3.20GHz
•RAM: 8 GB
•Hard Drive: 35 GB
•Video Card: (DirectX 11) AMD Radeon R9 270X 2048MB | NVIDIA GeForce GTX 760 2048MB @1080P

PC 60fps+ Specifications:

[Expected 60 FPS+ on campaign map and in a 1v1, 20 units vs 20 units battle, default graphics preset set to “Ultra”]
•Operating System: Windows 7/8.1/10 64Bit
•Processor: Intel® Core™ i7-4790K 4.0 GHz
•RAM: 8 GB
•Hard Drive: 35 GB
•Video Card: (DirectX 11) AMD Fury X or Nvidia GTX 980 @1080P

Creative Assembly also mentioned that Warhammer: Total War will be 64bit unlike Attila, Rome II and other previous games. Specifications can be read on their wiki here.

[Retropunch]

I've never heard 'give reviewers time to play' as a thing reason for delaying before - and it doesn't seem to make any sense?! I mean, I'm completely happy if they need to push it back to create a polished product, but I just can't see why they need time to play really. I mean, this just feels like they've given a really lame cover up story to try to deflect from something more serious - but I can't think what that is or why they didn't just admit the real reason!?

Anyway, the specs seem good, although I don't really know why they've put the min-specs at 15fps. I can't imagine playing a game at that low!

[Digital Hellhound]

Huh, those recommended settings are lower than I expected. My laptop won't have any problems with this (though if I think about it, it didn't with Rome 2 either and this doesn't seem like that big of a jump, so eh). I only have a GTX 750M, though, but it'll manage.

Also I totally missed this is coming out so soon. Excellent. Would've been even nicer if it hadn't been pushed back, though, but oh well.

[Puzzlemaker]

Honestly I am glad they have the balls to push it back instead of releasing a buggy product.

[Neonivek]

Honestly I am glad they have the balls to push it back instead of releasing a buggy product.

I hate this statement so much. Not you Puzzlemaker your fine.

We now live in a world where it takes guts to release a horribly broken and non-functional game. Instead of the other way around.

[Teneb]

Honestly I am glad they have the balls to push it back instead of releasing a buggy product.

I hate this statement so much. Not you Puzzlemaker your fine.

We now live in a world where it takes guts to release a horribly broken and non-functional game. Instead of the other way around.

We have for almost the last century lived in a world where corporations have thought of their bottom line above all else. All that has changed is that now game studios are owned by those corporations.

[Neonivek]

Honestly I am glad they have the balls to push it back instead of releasing a buggy product.

I hate this statement so much. Not you Puzzlemaker your fine.

We now live in a world where it takes guts to release a horribly broken and non-functional game. Instead of the other way around.

We have for almost the last century lived in a world where corporations have thought of their bottom line above all else. All that has changed is that now game studios are owned by those corporations.

And?

[Teneb]

Honestly I am glad they have the balls to push it back instead of releasing a buggy product.

I hate this statement so much. Not you Puzzlemaker your fine.

We now live in a world where it takes guts to release a horribly broken and non-functional game. Instead of the other way around.

We have for almost the last century lived in a world where corporations have thought of their bottom line above all else. All that has changed is that now game studios are owned by those corporations.

And?

What I am saying is, this is not about games. It's about corporations in general.

[Neonivek]

Honestly I am glad they have the balls to push it back instead of releasing a buggy product.

I hate this statement so much. Not you Puzzlemaker your fine.

We now live in a world where it takes guts to release a horribly broken and non-functional game. Instead of the other way around.

We have for almost the last century lived in a world where corporations have thought of their bottom line above all else. All that has changed is that now game studios are owned by those corporations.

And?

What I am saying is, this is not about games. It's about corporations in general.

And?

Corps have always owned games.

[Majestic7]

There is a great difference between gamers making games for gamers (indy teams and small game companies) and people having nothing do with games producing entertainment product for consumers (big entertainment/game companies). The latter do it only for money, while the first might have other motivations in addition to money.

There were many shitty games made in the Olden Times as well, but at least the motivation wasn't shoveling shit for $$$. (We don't speak about old Atari atrocities.)

[ZebioLizard2]

There is a great difference between gamers making games for gamers (indy teams and small game companies) and people having nothing do with games producing entertainment product for consumers (big entertainment/game companies). The latter do it only for money, while the first might have other motivations in addition to money.

There were many shitty games made in the Olden Times as well, but at least the motivation wasn't shoveling shit for $$$. (We don't speak about old Atari atrocities.)

Actually aside from Atari there were plenty of crap games for money, this was the era where you had a ton of games frontloaded with the best stuff in order to get you to purchase episodes or other such things, or games in general that were just horrid. We just tend to nostalgically remember the better ones, and hopefully cut out the bad ones like Megaman for PC.

[BFEL]

There were many shitty games made in the Olden Times as well, but at least the motivation wasn't shoveling shit for $$$. (We don't speak about old Atari atrocities.)

I recently discovered there was a Gauntlet ripoff named Cuntlet. It was literally Gauntlet but infinitely less PC.

If THAT wasn't shoveled in for $$$, then the world is broken.

[Majestic7]

Was it money or just immaturity? I mean, I kind of doubt it was the result of a big marketing team analyzing the target demographics and bla bla. Even if the games were shit, the production culture was different.

[Mech#4]

A new trailer is out now, showcasing the Vampire Counts as the forth faction for Warhammer: Total War.


Zombies, Skeletons, varghulfs, vargeists, zombie dragons, black knights, grave guard and more. Also shows off some siege battle which ties in with a recent blog post describing the siege battle system in Warhammer: Total War. There was also a picture put up which showed that, along with Mannfred von Carstein, Heinrich Kemmler is going to be present as a legendary lord for the Vampire Counts.


Sieges: From the blog post, sieges are being changed in design from previous Total War games. Where in Rome 2 and Attila you could assault a city from any direction, in Warhammer: Total War you have a single direction of assault on the battle map consisting of a thick wall (so units can flank and manoeuvre better) with defensive towers that only shoot forwards and a gate. Beyond this is wide streets for units and cavalry with a central battle square that is the target for assaulting forces (like in Medieval 2).

The single direction assault does sound like a reduction but I quite agree with Creative Assembly's reasoning. I would often only assault one strip of wall for a city in Rome 2 anyway, because splitting your forces up made them less effective. Also, they state that it will allow the A.I. to cope better with attacking and defending.
Another reason, aesthetically, is that it allows the cities to appear larger than they really are. Take Rome in Rome 2 for example, the whole city had to appear on the battle map because you could attack from any direction, this made the city much smaller then it would normally have been. By having a single wall line, the city can stretch beyond the battle map and appear much bigger and grander.

Having seen the problems with the large city battles in previous Total War games (Medieval 2 the A.I. would often get stuck or confused, standing outside your walls, units being a huge pain to position on walls during battle. Big lag during sieges in Rome 2 and Empire when breaching walls) I find this direction to be rather an agreeable one. It also works well for the dwarfs who would really only have one approach to their underground karaks.

I think a question would be can the walls be broken through still using artillery. With the thicker walls this might not be the case since so many more units will be positioned on them. Also, I saw someone mention that the city siege layout reminds them of "Heroes of Might and Magic 3" and I agree that the resemblance is enjoyably similar.