it's true that CA are messing things up , but can't help but be a fanboy of total war xD despite all it's a very unique game, no other strategy game will ever be on total war level .
@@VerekEdits why would you preorder a digital video game? Are you worried the virtual copies will run out? Or is giving a company an interest free loan for products whos quality you cannot verify just good?
Honestly what you said is part of the problem. CA has very little competition for what they do and fans are left with few options if they release subpar content or a game they do not enjoy
After having played it since Rome1 i honestly don't care if its fantasy or historical accurate. I think the reason total war is dying is because of the overoptimalisations that turned into dumbing down of mechanics. That and their lack of innovation. There used to be a time where each solider in any given unit was its own thing, having its own healthbar, blocking chance etc. It felt complex and real. Nowadays all units are one big bar that are represented by some guys on screen and its boring af
I remember watching a single hastati fight like a monster in rome 1 and killing 5 guys on his own in rome 1. Me and my brothers always watched close up fights of troops.
totally agree. Its now turned into a stat competition. The weight in fights is gone. I could watch medieval 2 combat for hours and still do so because as you say it felt like a story and is just that entertaining. Also the whole armor upgrade system that you could apply from the campaign map and it transitioning into actually changing your units visually on the battlefield I think is still the best feature of any total war game over the last 17 years. Which for some reason CA dropped and has never replicated since. Its so sad and I hate how they do the cost analysis design of modern triple A studios. Its just stupid and frankly BS how much they Nickle and dime this series.
Another thing I miss is the overall vibe of earlier Total War games. Jeff van Dyck's music helped set a mood that was somber, dark, and gritty. The menus with their silhouette art and ominous music. It really shows in the art direction that spectacle and making big, bombastic, but ultimately empty set pieces is their new focus.
You are right on this. There is definitely something missing from the atmosphere. Whereas I used to open up the old TWs and get hyped to play the game while loading into the main menu now its... I don't know it just feels lacking. I don't necessarily want the silhouette backgrounds of the early games but I want something that gets me excited to jump back in. The menus since have been so plain with only a few exceptions.
Not to mention the overall sound design of Rome, Medieval 2 and Shogun 2 are unmatched. Which sells everything you visually you see on the screen, those games maybe not have always looked super amazing, but backed with their great sound design you feel the special effects in your whole body just from the audio alone as your imagination fills in the blanks. Newer total has a problem of sounding too realistic, low volume and dull, makes all the visual flaws more pronounced.
Historical titles is also very connected to ones fantasy. I've played hundreds of hours in Empire, Medieval, Rome and Atilla. I would lie if I wouldn't admit that a lot of my enjoyment is part of my ability to find myself imersed into the setting. I don't need dragons and demons for that.
Looking like Pharaoh will be historical, fingers crossed. Seems smart if they keep making 1 game historical & another that isn't? Appeases both groups & prevents the feeling of indecision
@@ksiaze649 uhu that's why Warhammer has been the most popular and most profitable series for Total War ever, because most of it is 'shit'... I can agree that historical can be fun every now and then but that doesn't take away the fact that fantasy is just way more enjoyable for way more people. At the end of the day CA is a company that wants to make money, and Warhammer 3 will bring make more money than Pharaoh or Medival 3 ever will. This is no hate towards historical, just facts.
Im playing Rome 2 Hannibal now since I never did before and I recently got into the history a bit more. Sadly the campaign mechanics always let you down a little bit. Its still immersive. Total Warhammer 2 was easily the best game they did so far. I didnt play the 3. yet but will in a short while so maybe that will be the best. When you know a bit about the lore its really immersive as well.
Agreed, no Shogun 2 and neither of the Medievals mentioned is a complete sin for the subject of this video. I'd definetly draw a graph of my experience of the series as increasing all the way up to a peak at Medieval 2, down for Empire, increasing back up a bit for Shogun 2 then dropping off completely for Rome 2. Walked away from the series after.
wtf are u talking man. TW warhammer has an amazing modding community. there are overhauls that takes a month to update after a patch release. you just are using your head canon
@@matiashofmann6010 dude they made it nerly impossible to mod Attila and all other new TW titles. Modders JUST cracked the code for some of them to make full overhaul mods.
@@seanwalters1977what he means are the source code. previous total war titles have mod friendly source code which allowed for easy modding but for the later total war games the source code is very gated making it very un mod friendly. mods may exist for total warhammer and total war 3 kingdoms but not as large a scale as medieval 2, total war rome, and other earlier total war games. a similar example for this is dragon age origins which allowed mod on its source code while dragon age inquisitions source code does not and to this day no one has managed to crack its source code except for the source code of its character creation and color schemes which led it having mods limited to texture and script value mods
The focus on having a sole lone unit instead of a commander unit ruined several games for me, I really dislike that stuff. It's just dull watching a single dude fight off 150 assailants at once, regardless of if you control the 150 assailants or the 1 dude..
@@gronizherz3603 I think the only time I liked the single entity units was in shogun 1, where the guy was still just a normal dude, just inordinately skilled with his weapon, therefor allowing him to easily die if he was to be exhausted or if a lucky hit that broke through his armor hit him
The thing with Thrones of Britannia and why its ignored is because it is just Attila. It's an Attila mod basically. It's actually quite good it just came out at a weird time when people were hoping for a lot more.
@@Frontline_view_kaiser Yeah its a great game and has some fantastic mods too, and it doesnt have the problems or troy or 3k. repeating myself but its literally an attila vikings expansion. Which is obviously why people were unhappy at the time, but years down the line that's sounding pretty good.
There's a lot of unexplored territory for them to branch into for a solid historical foundation: The Wars of the Roses, English Civil War, 30 Years War, US Civil War, the Victorian era, and of course I've been patiently waiting over a decade for Empire 2
I would have thought that these days the Victorian era would be deemed far too… problematic. Way too close in time for them to be comfortable with, especially with European empires carving up Africa. The twitter mob would go berserk!
@@greva2904 Yeah, that's the thing, I worry about that. But most of the audience doesn't really care too much about that so I hope they're not too afraid to take that course. It's even better if other nations other than the West or Japan can have the option to modernize too. Still, this might be far fetched and won't see the light of day. Hope some company out there are willing to be competitors of CA and make a game set on that era.
Eh, my biggest beef with this franchise is that they don't seem to try to expand the complexity and depth of these games. Some people believe that Shogun 2 was the pinnacle of new-engine TW series. I can see why. It has really easy to learn but hard to master mechanics. You had to utilize every mechanic in the game to win. That's not quite the same in WH2 or WH3, where you can basically ignore faction mechanics and just pump out units and conquer the world. Another thing is optimization which has been a menace in newer TW games. It reached its absolute peak in WH3 having major problems, especially in anything above 1080p. What really bothers me as well is that TW games have really, really poor AI. The amount of cheese you can inflict on the enemy is absolutely unimaginable. All the stuff you can make them do, it's like playing a puppet master. It only exacerbated the issue of artificial difficulty. AI, instead of actually doing all the clever things that are within the scope of their possibilities, it just gets more resources and higher stats to compensate the fact that you can troll them with single unit entities and heroes.
It's sadly the life cycle of a lot of game franchises, Shogun 1 started it all and Medieval 1 & 2, and Rome 1, continued to add new features and mechanics, only to then start being simplified down to streamline the game play. We've seen this happen in a multitude of other franchises too, where important mechanics are stripped away to make the game more accessible to a wider audience.
The AI is annoying because people defend the enemy just getting stat boosts in higher difficulties as fine when that is called out as lazy with any other franchise. I dont know why the fans give them a pass on stat boosted difficulty scaling and act like it's some impossible feat to improve the brain dead AI. I was playing ultimate general the other day and was taken off guard when my undefended artillery was captured because the AI sent a skirmisher unit to sneak up behind my line. That doesn't happen in TW and the Ultimate general/admiral series shows it's possible.
@@stephengrigg5988 ah there's nothing like the stat boosts, nothing like seeing a unit of peasants/mobs go blow for blow against higher tiered units for no reason other than the fact their stats get quadrupled
You have completely missed why Total War died. It wasn't because of latest titles being between fantasy and history, it was because of the game mechanics being dumbed down or removed completely. Just have 2 units fight in Attila and compare it to Warhammer. Btw, Thrones of Britannia had the most number of the unique siege maps in series.
Everything has been dumbed down....Just scroll past a unit in Atilla vs a unit in Thrones and look at the unit models. Modern total war its all cut and paste. Atilla they all had different armor/helmets, unit commanders, hair, color patterns, standard bearers, attack animations. It was just overall a much better game to look at.
While matched combat wasn’t perfect I prefer units actually fighting them jumping at each other with over the top attack animations like it’s age of empire until one dies cus his invisible health bar became 0 and just falls over dead.
Dumbing down started after Medieval II. I'm still playing Empire today, but I wish it had the deeper mechanics of M2. My main focus is on the campaign, I spend 90% of the time in the "board game" mode. And as a board game, TW does no longer work, it lacks depth in every aspect. The realtime battles look beautiful, of course. TW just needs that little bit of Crusader Kings, at least the stuff they removed from Medieval II, put back in.
@@Kobold666 Absolutely correct. They began cutting down features severely following Medieval 2. Empire/Napoleon still had some things going for them, but not to the same degree. Come Shogun 2, the overall experience had been so dumbed down it's hard to believe. Atrociously oversimplied diplimacy with lots of AI issues. Severe restrictions on settlements and building types, cooldown abilities for combat, no retraining of units (armour upgrades). Shogun 2 still worked because the combat itself felt good, but the game itself is very simplistic and a husk compared to Med 2. But wow, after that it became a disastor. And all their games still suffer from this endemic.
@@Gdsryrox I mean as much as I love matched combat I feel like it just makes things alot more annoying. I mean like yeah sure people that spend their entire lives training to be elite soldiers should be extremely skilled in combat, but everytime I play a siege battle in rome 2 for example I end up spending like 5 minutes on the last unit alone because the chieftain and and his retinue of bodyguards are demigods that can slaughter half my roman army despite having like 10 javelins in their shields each. In warhammer 2 for example, sure, some lords are very much the same, same with monsters, but when it comes to elite infantry they can be defeated without dealing too much damage to you if you surround them with sheer numbers. Or vice versa, if you arnt careful with your elite units and decide to charge them into a bunch of overgrown rats they can easily find themselves overwhelmed because there are 50 rats per soldier poking sharp sticks into the plates of their armor. Like the main reason I am in love with total war is because it is cinematic, which matched combat obviously helps massively with. But as someone who grew up on medieval 2 and rome 1, I am able to cope without it. And honestly, cant blame warhammer for lacking matched combat seeing the massive diversety of races. The matchups would be endless. There are actually extremely rare matched combat between skaven and elves.
Nah. Just use game enhancing mods, Stainless Steel or SSHIP. Medieval 3 wouldn't be as good, just look at later additions. DLCs (that should've been included in base game) in the price range of AAA game, hero units, weird battle mechanics... This is not about fantasy, this is about the fact they are one step from introducing microtransactions into the game.
Couldn’t agree more, have been playing M2 on IPad and it’s actually been improved, not just ported. This leads me to hope for M3, else why bother to change anything for a simple port.
I dont think Medieval 2 deserves that trophy. Medieval 2 atmospheric design is quite bland compared to the likes of Rome 2 and absolutely doesnt hold a candle to the Warhammer series. When it comes to artstyle alone warhammer kicks every other contender out of the park. Warhammer is to Medieval 1&2 what STALKER is to Battlefield. Medieval and Battlefield have a charm rooted in realism. Warhammer and STALKER are the atmospheric juggernauts of their genres due to the nature of the tools at their disposal alone.
For me Rome 2 was where I really started to have issues with CA and Total War. It was after Attila and before Warhammer was when I checked out. Then made the move to paradox games.
when rome 2 came out it forced me to as my pc couldnt handle rome 2 at the time. sad to see they still yet to release a proper historical TW game since Rome/Atilla. (the new egypt one i thought was returning but its just special this or that which i guess works but its not for me)
Still wishing they dion't skip the entirety of the 16th & 17th century, would have loved to see something like Pike & Shot Total War. Starting where Medieval II ended, Castle, and City walls slowly adapting to the new warfare.
Play the Otomo in the Sengoku Campaign in Shogun 2. Not only do you get to play pike & shot, but you get to play pike & shot and bring the GLORY OF CHRIST TO A HEATHENISH LAND
For me it was Rome 2 that tipped the boat. The features they got rid of from older games like Med2 really limited the player within the context of the campaign missions. Personally I've had more fun playing Rome TW remaster, and Med2, than Attila and every game after that. Seeing what they are doing to Pharoh now makes me causely optimistic. Yes I love the direction they are heading towards, but I hate the focus on characters rather than factions. I hate the limitations, and the time period. I would love a period that they have never touched before, but an interesting one where you can show a lot of variety. Time periods like Thirty years war, Victorian era, The rise of Abbassids, and more very well documented periods should be prioritized rather than a perioid full of speculation.
Bro they even started to remove ingame multiplayer chat from the older titles and the fanboys are mocking anyone who is requesting it be maintained. Its actually disgusting how bad the fanboys have gotten and rotten the series. Medevial 2 and Shogun 2 were the last gasps of the series. Warhammer kinda revitalized it but I'd say thats more because of the setting rather then well total war.
@@pompeythegreat297 Exactly, historical hasn't been the same since Rome 2. Fantasy however has been doing extremely well so it's not that weird CA are focussing more on fantasy rather than historical. Besides, there are so much more fantasy titles that people would enjoy that I don't see a huge emphasis being put on historical any time soon, if ever.
Aye, I found the Attila campaign boring to play. The base game with no DLC's is empty and incredibly tedious with nearly every battle being a city battle for example, particularly 'early game'. You have to buy all the DLC's to bring some sort of viable interest and variation to the game, or mod the shite out of it, or both. In essence, the game is locked behind incremental paywalls although the base game is charged at full price. A shite business practice and I make sure I get all TW at bargain prices on Steam.
Same, think this guy's conclusions are a bit scuffed because he skips from Empire to Rome 2 and blames the issues in Rome 2 on the Empire engine. If that was true then Shogun 2 would have suffered similar issues but it didn't and instead had the best combat and campaign of any TW game.
@@Seraphiel123 "best combat and campaign" Wrong. The Combat in Shogun 2 suffered the exact issues as in Rome 2 with 1v1 combat, units sliding to get into place, missiles being overpowered, combat ending too fast and the campaign was criticized for mechanics like Realm divided. The reason it was better received was because they tricked people into thinking that's how Samurai fought in Feudal Japan (they didn't) and they polished the game enough that it worked mechanically better and was far more balanced and they got the aesthetics and immersion down to a T. Without that it would have been almost as criticized as Rome 2 was but the polish and clear focus was what saved it.
@@antzzors126 Wrong again, the same thing happens the same way, 1v1 with units sliding into place to get their animations synced with each other and Missiles always being overpowered to the point you could have a whole army of bow samurai and destroy an enemy force on it's own. My point wasn't even that Rome 2 was better in any capacity, Shogun 2 is simply a more polished version of it but the decision to use the same engine and style of melee combat is what ruined Rome 2 because at least you could get away with convincing people that Samurai fought 1 on 1, you could not do the same for Romans and Greeks which were all about formations.
@@rorschach1985ify bow sams werent even remotely overpowered, archers going against ashigaru units did fine, but anything above like 5 armor, felt like you were doing nothing in kill potential.
Rome 1 and Empire were my absolute favorites. I remember me and my friend playing Rome and not knowing what we were doing lol, but I also remember just going over the empire TW tech tree poster. I even pinned it on my wall. I’m a little sad to see where TW has gone but I’ll always hope the next game is better. This series is special!!
Just a few words to say that Shogun 1 is still a very, very valid game. If you don't give a single damn about 2D troops and the absence of actual pathfinding (and I mean, it doesn't take that much...) it is still nowadays a great gaming experience.
One I fell in love with was Medieval. Loved the titles, the intrigue, the princesses and courtiers doing missions while also having a battlefield mode. Nothing like it existed in early 2000s. TWII again, picked a great time in history, with the crusades. I wonder if they could do anything w the World Wars; or Warhammer 40k.
I agree with this analysis. I started with RTW and M2TW. I love the Warhammer titles but honestly the fighting doesnt seem as crunchy and impactful as getting a flank or rear charge on someone in Rome and M2. One thing I really miss from Rome is being able to go into rendered views of your cities complete with citizens. That's something that needs to come back.
Amen. I loved building a new building and then going into the city to see what it looked like, see the scale of my buildings and how much larger the city has become. I always wished it'd improve and show back up with even more features like the public order of the city changing how the citizens or soldiers in the city would act, some riots or violence when public order is bad. Or view the city during a siege to see how things are. It could have become a really cool feature to get more immersion but they've never gone back to it sadly.
I remember wishing they'd add a Mount and Blade type view, where you could control the general within a settlement to walk around your towns and cities, maybe interact with citizens, who would act differently depending on public order, the wealth of the town, food supply, culture, religion and how recently it's been conquered and incorporated into your faction, what you decided to do with the town (occupy, enslave, or massacre) would all affect your interactions with the citizenry. If you put a building into construction, or start training troops, you could go in to the city and actually see people building and training, if you built a garrison building, you'd see new soldiers start patrolling. It would have added so much to the game to be able to see your impact on the world through the eyes of the average citizen just going through day to day life, but instead they chose to completely remove the feature
The problem to me its the big combat rework that they made since Rome 2. Each soldier before had its own stats, which they used in combat. Now an entire unit shares their HP bar which makes for scenes like: Front row gets shot but some random dude in the back falls dead.
Same not just that I found past Total wars games I could win easy now for some reason its more of a thought process to win I never liked the combat changes.
@@blckpnk-rosee1223 Have you seen that because you put very hard in the battle category, enemy units get a secret 40% increase in all of their stats? Making many strategys actually useless?
@@szymonrozanski6938 yes, that’s why I play on very hard/normal. You can always use mods to get away from that artificial difficulty. But that doesn’t mean that no strategies work anymore. On the harder difficulties different strategies work.
Ranged units are so OP I is my pencer charges using infantry charging up front and my cavalry hitting them in the rear would just kill in the old games it doesn't have the same feeling or effect any more
Im not sure we should be praising CA for bringing back mechanics that were already a mainstay in older titles, these games should be increasing in complexity rather than dumbing down.
Rome 2 Total War was the most disappointing release I have ever experienced and was the tipping point for me. It took them two years to get the game into a state close to what they promised leading up to the game. I was following the hype pre release very closely and they straight up lied about features that would be in the game in addition to it not even being playable for most people like myself on release. It really was one of the early signs of things to come for the state of the video industry as whole becoming over reliant on releasing unfinished games with the hope they can patch them up later with updates.
i was like 13 at the time and was playing rome 1 since i was 6. When rome 2 came out and I played it on release I was literally crying because it was so bad and ran so poor.
@@107598 You're looking at it through some thick rose-colored goggles then. I've just done an Arverni and Macedon campaign in Rome 2 and its battles are terrible, people can try about Warhammer all they want but at least Warhammer 1 and 2 had good battles (3's battles are fucking broken though) and are the closest to Medieval 2 we've gotten since they changed to the blasted Warscape engine.
@@spikem5950 ive played all of the total wars and still do but rome always brings me back if i want a good battle. Must admit the good battles dont happen vs AI
Interesting perspective. For me personally, the highlights were the first Medieval and later Shogun 2. The latter mostly for the beautiful art style and the duel animations. Going from a province-based movement map to a free move map made it unnecessarily hard for the AI. This wasn't an issue in MTW. Also the loyalty mechanic, and the fact that if a unit leader died someone else would come up having a name and traits and everything made for a good illusion that you're not commanding units, but men. I remember my largest campaign as the HRE, slowly expanding in the early stages, then beating and occupying France in a massive battle for Paris with several thousands of troops. Once I expanded to Spain, I met the Almohads which at this point had taken control of all of North Africa and the Middle East. That theatre saw a series of huge battles with them and me cranking out troops and sending them to Spain continously. Battles would take real life hours, with tens of thousands of men fighting. In comparison, all other Total War games seemed mundane and, oddly, much lacking in scale. Empire was my personal low point. Hyped to the max, in the end it offered very little gameplay-wise.
Yeaaa boi. My greatest campaign in ETW was with the English, and hundred of turns in, I encountered the Tyranids in the Balkans. So many armies clashed in thos provinces, and even though it was in normal difficulty, the AI put on a serious challenge, immersive and all. A decade after I spend 20h in W2TW and suddenly the AI just pumps out 4 doomstacks in a row, out of nowhere, and then the community says to me that "you should have a better mage by this turn", like... where's the sandbox aspect of the game we all loved!? Why should I need to follow strict gameplay guidelines in a game that supposedly was meant to free the player to rewrite history, lmao
This video didn't age well, especially after the release of Pharaoh and it becoming very clear (Even though this was obvious before release) that this was a Troy reskin.
The reason I like fantasy is variety, great as shogun 2 may be to others I HATE the fact every army is the same until mid/late game I fell in love with tw warhammer because at the time I bought it the factions and their base units were: -empire, mixed, jack of all trades master of none, swordsmen -dwarfs, defensive, high armor, slow, no cavalry, amazing artillery, dwarf warriors -vampires, slow, weak, don't retreat, cause fear, cheap units meant to be cannon fodder, lords being key, skeletons -orks, fast, cheap, low armor, aggresive, ork boiz -bretonnians, shit cheap infantry, amazing expensive cavalry, men-at-arms/knights errant -chaos, high armor, aggresive, powerful baseline in general units, chaos warriors -beastmen, low armor aggresive units focused on devastating ambush charges, gors -wood elves, low armor but mixed/defensive units, big focus on archery, ambushes and stalk, glade guard
I just want them to make a good game where the units aren't bugging out in their sprawls. And the camera and controls in battles and map are top notch.
I think seeing Troy and Three Kingdoms as either Historical or fantasy is the issue. I see them as specifically Mythical games, rooted in our world but with characters who are larger than life, which was the exact reason that those stories became popular. RoTK became popular because of it's characters, The Illiad was classical because it was all about the "heroes" of that mythical war. I truly do believe CA nailed it in regards to honoring the source material for both games.
MEDIEVAL 3! All I'm going to say, For me, they can play around, with anything they want but if they can do a medieval 3 right and then maybe an Empire 2 after that then, only then will they regain the confidence of people in historical total war.
I agree. My first TW game was Empire, then Medieval 2, Shogun 2. War hammer 1&2 after. But oh boy, I was not prepared for the Magnum Opus, the Cream of the Crop, Rome Total War. And Ive never looked back, no even the remaster holds my attention and awe like OG Rome Total War.
Good vid. Yeh, good points. I started with the 1st Shogun with very fond memories. 🙂 I have just been having a go at WH 3 and it's very well done and fun to play. (Got WH 3 on Steam sale for very cheap earlier this year) Troy is a beautiful game, solid ,much underrated and well worth a go. You get to play as Agamemnon , or go along with Achilles and his temper tantrums or the honourable Hector, defending his brother's f**k up !.....as part of Homer's Illyad! What's not to like ;-) 3 Kingdoms (once you get past the cluttered screen, UI and confusing names, symbols etc) is an excellent game. It looks lovely aesthtically, plays well and the battle maps and atmosphere are lovely. The army makeup (3 'retinues') , interplay between characters and the spy network system are really good parts of the game and are unique within the Total War series and I have enjoyed 3K a lot. Rome 2 was not only a debacle on launch, the game was an unfinished mess with silly ideas, very bad AI, unstable and just a pain to play. I waited for the game to be out for a couple of weeks and seeing all the very bad (justified) backlash it got I was hesitant so I got it from Pirate Bay to demo it with the intent to buy it. I uninstalled the game in less than a week because it was sooo shite. CA not only released a game they well knew was a bag o' pesh, but they got caught out lying, releasing 'Pre-Alpha footage' of a carthage scenario that wasn't in the game as well as other bullshit such as shady business practice ie; ripping people off by selling the game for £50 then charging people MORE for the Greek cities 'DLC' that was already in the game etc etc. 'Ceasar in Gaul', although a good idea was unfinished and made in a lazy and rushed way and wasn't worth the money. CA began to try and get YT channels that were critical of them and the game censored and shut down and so on. After all this I vowed to never give CA full price for a game again and I haven't, only obtaining their games at bargain prices on Steam. I eventually got Rome 2 'Emperor edition' for £7 well over two years after release and I ONLY play it with the absolutely fantasitc overhaul mod 'Divide et Impera' which makes it an actual historical game and I still go back and play it to this day. Rome 1 was the benchmark, the standard to which all other TW games are measured because of it's impact. Everyone loved it and rightfully so as it ticked all the 'historical' boxes and was very fun to play. I still remember battles and parts of campaigns that I played even today, no other TW has ever really done this before or since. We await 'Pharoh' ... with cautious optimism. "The sinews of war....." and all that. ;-)
Great video. Took me back in time quite a bit. I started my journey of the TW-series with Rome 1 and Medieval 2. Played them a lot. Empire was the first one I didn't get soon after launch, but rather a couple of years later. Rather, I followed the release through fans' descriptions of the game. It's great. My story with Rome 2 and Attila was quite similar: Followed the hype of the games through the internet and Let's Plays, and only got to play them after some years when my laptops caught up with the technical side of things. Can't believe it's 10 years ago already - it makes my nostalgic. But by now I really love these two titles as well. Today, I'm kinda out of Total War - my PCs are just not capable of running the modern titles. But I'm not sure I'd like the direction the series is going, if they didn't make a proper historical title again.
why'd you neglect the historical modes both 3K and Troy have? its wild people either refuse to mention them or say they're lack luster when they don't even play it themselves. though the 40 minutes of playtime you mentioned you had in Troy would explain that i guess
Saying history vs fantasy is missing the point. Its a really long discussion but what I would sum up is how you feel when you play the game, in older title I play it for the battle, I feel like a general and I feel the satisfaction after winning a hard battle ie inferior troops vs better troops but I win due to using the terrain, positioning etc. The totalwar these day are gigantic spread sheets, terrain don't mean a thing, (ie in WH they literally have to post the stat buff and debuff for terrain for me to realized that its there while in older title after playing a few battles I realized the impact of terrain it immediately). So totalwar going down hill is not because of history or fantasy, it's because CA is getting lazy and just spreadsheet everything instead of putting in the time to craft up good and intuitive mechanic like in the older titles. The total war mummy they just announce has this mechanic where arrow would shred armour, which is kinda dumb tbh since killing heavy armoured unit is the job of slinger. But what would have been good mechanic is certain projectile could make the unit loose shield like the roman throw their pilum before going to battle which make their enemy shields useless. But nope just decreasing the health bar.
because it is a fact the historic modes are just a second thought and lackluster. CA doesnt want to make historical content they want to cater to fantasy fanboys. And that is the exact reason the franchise will die.
I’ve played TW since Rome 1 and it’s been my favorite series ever since, I also have loved the warhammer 40k/fantasy settings for almost as long as I’ve played TW so I consider myself a lover of both historical AND fantasy and the notion that historical titles would be boring in comparison is so dumb I don’t know if I believe CA actually feels that way. If CA made a full historical title (Pike and Shot please!) and fixed the issues with battles while also making a deep and engaging campaign side, nobody would be complaining there are no dragons flying around… I mean come on
Shogun Total War wasn't random happenstance, the entire game series is based on an old board game also called Shogun, then Samurai Swords, and then Ikusa in its final iteration. So many staple elements of the Total War series we lifted directly from this board game. Things like armies having a fixed number of units in it, generals leveling up the more battles they fight, hiring assassins to kill enemy characters. Even the construction mechanic, random event cards, and building up province garrisons are straight from the original board game. CA didn't reinvent the wheel or have some groundbreaking idea, they were just the first to figure out how to digitize a boardgame that had been around since the 80's.
I agree with you video. A big part to me is the engine they are using. The games have felt bad since Medival 2. They need an engine that has a better feel like the old one. Once they switched in Empire, it gave it a arcade and toy feel. Visually, it is good, but the changes and fights lack the weight that Rome and Medival 2 had. I still really enjoyed the games, Troy being a highlight for me due to the mechanics of it, but they lack some spirit.
@@JJokerMoreau You're the only one huffing the copium dumbass. What he said is 100% right, Warscape engine games cannot do melee combat well at all. Not to mention all your harping on "muh AI" ignores that most modern TW AI acts just as if not even stupider than the older ones but get by thanks to the game using cheats to make it harder for you.
@@jacksmith-vs4ct Given literally everyone is playing Warhammer in droves as the most popular TW in history and in pure numbers, you're going to have to try harder than that.
Personally I loved the "Romanticized" take of Three Kingdoms. For alot of history, the way history was passed down and spread is through larger than life characters. There are many periods in history that people have no clue about, but you could mention a key person during those times and they would at least know of them (i.e very few people I know have heard of the Hundred Years War, but know Joanne d'Arc.) So to reflect a time in history that does indeed have a very romanticized version widely known, I personally see as an admiration to those who preserved that history, and would hopefully at least intrigue people into learning the true history behind it all. Now does every time period need this form of romanticization, not at all. But when applied correctly, I think it would provide a great chance for more to become intrigued.
>> I personally see as an admiration to those who preserved that history, and would hopefully at least intrigue people into learning the true history behind it all. What good does that do if Total War games no longer portray "the true history behind it all"? The original Shogun Total War literally came with an encyclopædia of the Sengoku Jidai.
@@mbg4681 Little lost at the question cause of the provided example, but will try to respond to the best my understanding. If you don't like the romanticized version option, simply turn it off. Simple as that. Even with the romanticized version, there will mostly still be truth in there as a majority of units are still representative of what would be accurate. I think the key is the need to have the option available to players, and personally if you're trying to learn history from a video game of any kind that is the completely wrong way to go about it. If Total War wants to go away from historical into fantasy, I have no quarrel with that. I think Troy was poorly executed and basically had an identity crisis, being half-baked in history and fantasy (granted fixed after time , but damage was done.) As for having historical information available in-game, there's two reasons why i would not see a need for that. It's a game if I want to read about the historical context of a game I would do it later as I would rather be playing the game, and I can see the feature getting little use, so why place extra burden on the developer.
@@C.Kado18 >> If you don't like the romanticized version option, simply turn it off. Simple as that. I'm not just talking about 3k, I'm talking about the overall direction of the TW franchise. I have no problem with CA making TW fantasy games. I just want them to _also_ make the types of historical games that made them big in the first place. >> I think the key is the need to have the option available to players If the options are equivalent, great. But that's not how TW is shaping up lately. We'll see how Pharaoh turns out. >> If Total War wants to go away from historical into fantasy, I have no quarrel with that. Yes, I'm sure you're happy that you are getting what you want. Strangely, I don't find that reassuring.
it's also important to say that 3K period itself is already romanticized by historical chinese artists and authors and then becoming what we saw today, it's kind of like the Arthurian legend (but with historical basis) of the whole Eastern Asia so it's really a wise choice to romanticize this period. However I'm really not so sure for periods like Pharoh
Except the "historical" modes are lazily tacked on and poorly implemented which just shows that CA is giving no regard for any historical fans and turning them away more. Also it is bullshit to say "few people" have heard of the hundred years war when it is one of the most popular wars in Medieval history and well known by people in Europe and even outside of that. The only people who only know of Joanne are the kind of people who are not into history at all and much less into video games.
One of the things that impresses me most about the Total War modding scene is how much effort they put into drawing from historical accounts and artifacts to inform how they're going to populate the map with factions. It's kinda inspiring. Needless to say the whittling away of the historical content from CA isn't impressive at all and made far worse when added to the constraints that they imposed on their games for modders. RIS's absolutely epic 1700 settlement map with dozens of greek factions alone and who knows how many others beyond that isn't being made on the modern total war engine but a remastered Rome1 engine. Getting back into a more concrete historical setting will certainly help CA with the historical fans but actual support for the modding scene will allow CA the margin for error where they can make an approachable game suitable for a broad audience but also satisfy the history nerds.
Tbh total wars decline started way before this with the introduction of "hero characters" and provinces which led to this almost RPG total war series where it's all about skill trees and spectacle over tactics on the battle side and the province system on the city side, killing any form of true freedom. I still hold the skaven mechanics were the greatest revolution tw had made in a long time and then it was undone with the hero packs and ever increasing need to shoehorn named characters.
So you mean the original Shogun ruined the franchise. I waited a LONG time to have my Kensai back, lol. I feel as far as WH 3 is concerned, it is the paying more for less with the DLC.
@@AstralJumper there's a reason none of the subsequent tw had hero units, it shits on the idea of the game being a tactical simulator. Never forget at one point tw hd it's own TV show it was considered that "realistic" that was always the franchise strength imho. Unfortunately for the dev team it seems that they can't conceptualise fantasy and realism in the same game, hence the decline. No one minds paying for dlc, when it's good.
I would have to really question what are being considered "hero units" seeing as basically every game has had something that could be considered as such. Med 2 had the spies and merchants and priests. Empire had gentlemen and rakes. Rome 2 had spies, prophets, and captains, etc. I will agree that provinces caused a lot of wholey unnecessary wtf-ery however.
@@silverkingisley6438 well I mean the obvious answer is that those units didn't fight on the battlefield and walk around tanking units singlehandedly. They were strategic assets not battlefield units
I really loved the historical total war series. I stumbled onto Manor Lords, which is about city building, economy, politicing with neighbors, and real time combat based on the citizens of your towns/cities. It's not done, but it's well underway and there was a preview demo that was a fully playable settlement game. I'm looking forwards intensely to seeing it develop and release.
I actually never bought a new Total War game after Rome 2. I was so disappointed with this game and the subsequent non-historical games that I am still waiting for CA to produce a good historical game to buy. Rome 2 was defenitely the tipping point for me.
@heitorpedrodegodoi5646 they have some good elements no doubt about it, but they lack that old melee combat system and sieges. Although I am no fantasy fan normally I did enjoy the way they implemented that stuff in warhammer. But if they would have done warhammer but with the old style melee and sieges man that would have been freakin epic.
In Rome 1 if a big battle was fought on the campaign map it would leave behind a historical marker telling you who fought there, and who won, and who lost. That gave battles abit more of significance to the player, and made actions across the entirety of the map feel more meaningful, and in ways mysterious. It was nice to run across historical markers across the map as you progressed as it gave nostalgia of your previous struggles, and victories that may have seem to be so long ago by that point in the game, but you kind of got a glimpse of the past. The General you used, and the soldiers that were there - your emotions, and ambitions, and worries of the time. Historical Markers were a nice touch, and should of been continued throughout the Total War series.
As a hardocre fan of the historical branch of the TW franchise ( which is the only I care about actually ) my biggest issue is that it stuck on ancient to early medieval era after the ETW-NTW. It didnt age up in history. They keep making multiple titles about ancient times again and again still. My insatiable desire always was to see a modern TW title based on Victoria era and later. Thats the reason I was forced to move to Paradox titles and Civilization.
id love to see a world wars or age industry setting 1910 -1950 with planes n stuff that would be cool and for a fantasy title in the same space how about a steampunk/ dieselpunk setting like iron harvest but total war i love those types of setting far more than ancient historical stuff with an exception for late medieval nothing beets a cavalry charge at field cannons
@@wolfensniper4012 "ancient is boring mind you" Says the twat who thinks a style of combat where everyone fights the exact same way is somehow less boring. Empire and Napoleon literally had no diversity, every single army was just a copy paste of the other with almost no uniqueness and the ones that did were shit because their "unique" units were outdated melee or bow armed units that would get wrecked by up to date gunpowder units. Even Shogun 2 felt more unique thanks to campaign mechanics and every unit feeling useful with no wasted slots.
I have a friend who works in the CA Sofia studio. I wouldn't hold my breath for Pharaoh as it's production is near identical to Troy's, a skeleton crew with a relatively small budget being forced to finish a game months before they can actually finish it
It will be partly understandable for a Saga title however I'll never understand that why CA decided to sell it as a main historical title with nearly zero improvements from Troy other than minor mechanism
I live only 15 minutes away from CA HQ here in sussex and game tested Pharaoh before it was announced (under an NDA so couldnt make public) and I immediately had the same reaction, in all ways it felt like Troy 2.0. There were some new features that were nice but nothing that was ground-breaking.
I think people just really really want another Medeval Total War. Knights, longbows an Mongols. For me I would love if they did a Asia version of the Medeval time period. The mogols rise to power, the neighbouring nations, chinese dynasties, Korea etc.
i can't put my finger on it, but something about Warhammer 3 feels very different from 2. I remember playing the tutorial and getting very excited when I watched my elemental bear climb over a ledge to get at some archers. Hundreds of hours later, and I have not seen anything even half as cool as that. The gate bug has been in Warhammer since the first iteration, AND THEY STILL HAVEN'T BOTHERED FIXING IT! I'm sorry CA, but there's only so many passes you get from me.
People don't understand the warhammer 1 2 3 are buggy yes that's why mods exist the game I very good just you might not like that it's fantasy and that's fine
@@djoctavio1234 Dude, I'm a fantasy fanatic, The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings where some of my favorite books as a kid. However, when the game is so buggy you can't go more than five battles without a post battle CtD, that's a problem. I have the community bug fix mod, but there's only so much it can do.
3K was my first TW game, which I got due to my love of that period of history. Knowing the historical figures definitely helps make it more appealing, but I think that game has much better mechanics than the other titles. Everything feels so half baked in the other titles, like they want to give the illusion of mechanics that don’t really matter. The biggest issue that all TW games have is that winning battles feels meaningless. Crush 30 enemy armies? Maybe you move forward and take a couple plots of land…and more armies are already there. That frustrated me in Shogun 2, but it also feels like the games really want you play in a very specific style. In shogun 2, the unit types were just obnoxious. To be fair, 3K has the same issue of most units being pointless, but at least in that game there weren’t constant doom stacks everywhere. Troy was just…balls. It’s such a struggle to take one tiny bit of land, the administration system nerfing your economy was dumb, and enemy armies could move way too far in a single turn. TW games pretend like you have a lot of options, but it always ends up feeling like dynasty warriors, except less fun. Supplies should matter. They sort of do for like the first 10 turns in 3K…and then never again. If I kill 100k soldiers, it should have SOME effect on the enemy. Low population from recruiting should limit their options. If my opponent just gets another full stack next turn, and now the land I took is yet another side to defend…it just feels like I’m being punished for winning. I do wish 3K’s records mode had more love put into it, but until battles stop being meaningless grinds, it seems like a waste to me. And the diplomacy…it seems basically nonexistent to me in titles other than 3K. Maybe I just don’t get the more standard TW titles, but it feels so one note and intentionally roadblocked to waste time that I don’t even view them as strategy games. I guess a lot of ‘strategy’ games suffer from this, but when the game is more about trying to abuse dodgy game mechanics instead of planning a military campaign, I tune out.
Rome 1 and Medieval 2 both have settlement population systems which prevent you from recruiting too much too fast, especially from small cities. It also allowed population transferring by recruiting a bunch from one city and then disbanding them in another. This was sometimes very helpful since city growth is percentage based in those games. On that note Medieval 2 also had a system of only being able to recruit a set amount of any one unit type in a given time. Higher tier units took longer to be able to recruit again once you extinguished the pool. I think both of these systems are way overdue from coming back, all historical titles should have them to make victories actually noticeably meaningful.
As hound said, Rome 1 and Medieval 2 have population systems that do affect recruiting. Rome 2 has an overhaul mod, Para Bellum, that adds in a very well-implemented population system in my opinion. You have three tiers of citizen types (4 if you count slaves) and the population a unit recruitment draws from corresponds to their unit tier. So for instance when I was playing the Arverni, to recruit Oathsworn I'd need to take from my noblemen population. More standard warriors took from the citizens population.
Imagine that you live in a small town that has one burger restaurant. Growing up you loved going there and really enjoyed their burgers. Then one day they said "We aren't serving burgers anymore, we only serve corndogs now." It upsets you because that was the only place in town you could get burgers, and now they only serve a product you don't like. When you complain about it people go "Well they make a lot of money on corndogs, so stop complaining." Or "Just eat corndogs" Or "They should never make burgers again because I only like corndogs." Maybe that's not a perfect analogy, but I think that's how I and a lot of other historical fans feel.
CA didn't die from Troy and Three Kingdoms. CA lost there historical fans by not catering to them. There has not been a serious historical game for some time. Yes they have essentially tried to pacify both communities by making Troy and Three Kingdoms. What I don't understand is why people think CA making generals hero units would be the intended idea going forwards. Frankly speaking both Troy and 3k are essentially marvel stories where you favorite hero meets another of your favorite heroes and they have a big battle. Troy is littered with amazing heroes of legend said to be blessed by gods fighting each other and seeing who would win. 3k has deified there generals through the fictional novel telling a biased take on historical events. Both settings have true historical context. Personally I think both Troy and 3k did exactly what I wanted them to do. Where my Generals win through formations and the heroics of individuals. Saying all that let me be clear. Historical fans have reason to be upset since the last good historical title has been Rome 2. (I dont know how good Rome 2 is in comparison to Shogun 2 and Mediaeval 2). I think CA is trying to find a historical setting people would truly be interested in going forward. Since they can just keep making Rom3456, Shogun3456, and Medieval 3456. Perhaps they go into WW1 or retry a setting they did not do well at (thrones of Britannia).
we need Medieval 3 though, that game (if done correctly would be absolutely amazing and would bring back hope for historical fans. all they have to do is build off of Medieval 2, and add new features on the campaign map and in battle (i think destructible cities and fire being able to spread from Pharaoh would be a great addition, and a return to bloodlines and even more diplomacy options would be great). The map would have to be huge for my liking however, at least 20 settlements in every country
Generally most were asking for Medieval 3 or Empire 2 or Shogun 3. I believe most were unhappy with how CA treated Historical Titles after Rome 2, many wanted CA to go back to its root and improve upon the mechanics and not striping them or downgrading them. Despite its flaws, 3K and Troy did bring in improvements that many were asking before such as improved diplomacy in 3K and good map design in Troy. WH Trilogy is great but its too arcadey for me
I loved how they say Pharaoh will be next historical TW. I expected a Bronze Age based Attila, but then I saw that trailer with a screaching, fur-armored neanderthal, and I was out intantly.
It's not because you make a total war game set in a fantasy universe that it must have a heroic fantasy gameplay, look at the Divide and conquer mod for Medieval 2 : it has a fantasy setting and an "historical" gameplay
Perfect overview of everything. So grateful you mentioned Thrones even if only briefly 😅 I still have huge doubts about Pharaoh. We'll see what they do with Medieval III.
I really enjoyed the first Medieval Total War. It was like nothing else I had played before. Then I bought Empire and that was (except the bugs ) great game too. I was spending all my gaming time to play total war and was not even getting bored. Last game that I really enjoyed was Attila as historical. After Atilla I tried ToB. Its battles were very good honestly, however its campign was not enough for me to continue on playing. They also left the game uncomplete. It has Dlcs button which includes no dlcs. I agree the analysis. I do not like a game if it combines the real and fantasy. I like it when it is all fantasy or all real. Today I am not sure about Pharoah actually. It looks too much to Troy. I hope it does not shares the same destiny as it.
ughh. How did you enjoy Medieval? I hated that title. Turn base was all wrong and all provinces would rebel on you regardless of what you did to stop it and the units the rebels would get were way beyond anything they could possibly get like mounted armoured knights and trebuchets. I deleted that game in disgust. Rome 1 and Shogun 2 is where it's at for me.
@@gothamgoon4237 " Turn base was all wrong" How? If anything the more risk style map made the AI move and regroup it's forces better so it would attack and defend more decisively then they do in Rome 1. "all provinces would rebel on you regardless of what you did to stop it" Bull, sounds more like you sucked at the game because there is plenty of ways to put down Rebels by just building watchtowers and other buildings to improve public order and Generals would only lose loyalty and rebel if you gave them too many titles or grew your empire too large and fast causing them to become ambitious or if you left a weak heir upon your leader's death causing a civil war. It made expanding actually interesting instead of being a boring steamroll. " the units the rebels would get were way beyond anything they could possibly get like mounted armoured knights and trebuchets" Another bullshit point, unless you can build it yourself or it was a special event there is nothing showing that random rebels can spawn with high level troops like that. Not like the same does not still happen in your precious Rome 1 with Gladiator uprisings or faction revolts spawning gold chevron units. "I deleted that game in disgust." The only disgusting thing I see here is your garbage opinions.
@@rorschach1985ify Preach! I still enjoyed Rome and all the subsequent games up until Attilla, but I vastly prefered the Risk style map over the free movement one. I just don't think it improved the gameplay experience at all. I go so tired of chasing mini stacks all over the place and stumbling through fog of war to locate a city. Maybe I just got lazy lol. Medieval 1 is my favorite TW to this day. They never managed to recreate the gritty atmosphere that game had, with the possible exception of Attilla. I mean, the soundtrack alone. Chills.
For me the letdown started when they decided to scrap city micromanagement and replaced it with the slot system. It was a fairly small decision but pretty telling in what approach future games will take and took one important aspect of the feeling of "empire BUILDING". Then the games steadily got faster paced, more 5-minute-battles in less turns with much lower stakes attached to them. Naturally, I switched to Paradox games like EU IV that still portrayed the notion of grandeur and if it is a medieval battle I crrave, there is still Bannerlord.
CA lost me when Rome 2 came out. Not only was it buggy as hell, but they unneccesarily removed a lot of features from the older games and thus dumbed down the game way too much. As a strategy fan I want some depth and complexity. In Rome 2 I was now forced to have a General in every army and I could not split armies. In cities I couldn't build everything, but was forced to pick buildings for just a few slots. I used to enjoy making metropolises out of villages! I don't think there's population in Rome 2 either. And there were no family trees nor proper RPG mechanics. The game of agents now sucked, and you couldn't build watch towers or forts. In battle everyone shouted generic British, and there was no proper collision between units, or formations pushing against each other. They just blended into blobs. Which unit would win was entirely determined by stats, instead of taking into account terrain bonuses, morale etc. As far as I know all the later Total War games use the same engine and game design as Rome 2, and they continued the trend with simplification. That's why I haven't played any of the newer games. For me to be interested, they need to bring back the good parts of the old games, such as Rome 1 and Medieval 2, and they NEED to let armies have proper collision and work in formation (and for the love of God please bring back the projectile looks of Medieval 2). For me Total War peaked with Rome 1/Medieval 2 and Shogun 2. To this day modders keep making those games as good as they can be.
i dont have too much time in the other total war games, but one thing that really stood out to me was the diplomacy in tw3k, like, getting paid to peace out with an ai faction when your winning and being able to literally just buy/trade your way into owning china was very unique and hella fun for me. my only problem was that it crashed pretty frequently when playing with mods but otherwise a very solid game
This video is really well argued and I completely agree with your takes, apart from my cynicism of Pharaoh. Worst thing is CA completely broke my trust with Rome 2 and I still don’t trust them anymore. I’ve never liked the engine since Rome 2, it just feels unrealistic, and weak compared to the old games (apart from the musket ones which it was made for). But anyway it’s all good, I’ve got Rome remastered RTR Imperium Surrectum until they release a good historical again! 😅
It's impossible for Pharaoh to be "100% historically accurate" because so little is known about the Bronze Age Collapse, it's going to be another fantasy-history TW.
Throne of Britannia to me is a good game in which I have a good few hundred hours on,it is a real pity that it was abandoned, thankfully molders took care of it (especially the 1066 mod )
I love Thrones of brittania because I feel like it’s a more realistic medieval experience - I don’t like how in the 1212 mod you take three castles and all of a sudden you own half of Germany. So I personally liked having a massive and very minute map.
I've loved all titles, but Thrones of Brittania and although I like this video I think the title is a tad bit dramatic but all that aside your optimism and pragmatic take you don't simply slam everything just because it's new or different and I appreciate that!
I think Three Kingdoms romance mode was the best blend of fantasy and historical since the generals and hero characters are single powerful units but don't have magic have any monsters.
Nah it aint it tries to do both but history people arent happy cause why is there a one man army happening beating my elite guards and then the fantasy people are gonna be like wow this is just like whtw just with out most of the cool shit
I think Three Kingdoms is the best Total war game I’ve played, and I’ve played almost all of them. The Romance feels much like you would expect of its equivalent novel. Record’s feels more like a standard total war game where loose historical elements are more prevalent. Romance does a good job of implementing the larger than life characters that are so prevalent in The Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Why is this one man destroying my elite royal guard? Cause its mutha fucking Lubu!!! Not to mention the game itself has one of the best diplomacy interfaces and mechanics of any total war game.
I beg to differ. Good on you if you enjoy those, but I prefer a more realistic TW setting. Seeing an officer going full Dynasty Warriors on a whole army does not bring me joy 😕
I rarely comment on videos, but I completely agree with what you said on this. I’ve never liked the fantasy games. I bought warhammer 1, but have barely played it. Same with Thrones of Britannia and Three Kingdoms. I own them but just haven’t cared enough to play them. They just didn’t grip me. The last Total War game that I played properly was Atilla. I’ve since stopped playing and buying Total War games. I occasionally load one up and just think, I can’t be bothered with this and load up a Paradox game instead. It’s just how it’s gone for me.
There are no fantasy elements in Thrones of Britannia. It's really just an expansion for Total War: Attila, like the Britannia campaign was for Medieval II. I'd even go so far as to argue that it's one of the most historically immersive titles CA has ever put out. It has none of the arcadey/semi-mythical mechanics or aesthetics of the more recent 'historical' titles like Three Kingdoms.
I do not see the problem. I saw the decision with two different modes as good. They can do historical for historical mode and fantasy for fantasy mode.
The issue for me is not that we want a good historical OR fantasy total war, we just want a GOOD total war. One that doesn't launch as a broken mess, one where the units and ranged attacks have impact and feel like they hit hard. Compare an archer unit fireing in three kingdoms to longbowmen in medieval 2. One sounds and looks like wet noodles the otherone feels like balistas going off. Cavalry charges look pathetic in the latest entries... It says a lot when the physics in rome from 2004 look better than its successor 10 years later. Also why did we get rid of those pre battle speeches? Why is any general in 3 kingdoms that isnt a historical figure useless? When i put love and care into one of my generals in rome 1 i could create my very own alexander the great and it felt so much more rewarding for it. CA, if you're reading this, it doesn't matter how many fancy things you put on top of your food, how many fancy herbs and spices, it doesn't matter how many mechanics you add to your game, if your food is burned/ the foundation of your game is shakey its never gonna be good. I personally feel like the reason why ppl fall in love with a total war game are immersive battles and a sand-box campaign experience. So what they in my eyes need to do is actually reduce the numbers of random sidefactors that the ai considers, so it doesn't derp out as much anymore, make tactics count again (a +5 attack against infantry doesn't matter if units have 50 attack)... i loved the fact that you could mass-rout an enemy in rome and medieval 2 if you did it right, or that you could defeat an army of elite samurai with yari ashigaru in shogun 2. And secondly make the sandbox campaign experience more sandbox again. Don't force me to play one specific way. Let me create my own heros and generals. Let historical figures die in an upsetting way, let me do the thing in medieval 2 where i just send an army to rome and kill and replace the pope cause the bastard excommunicated me. Let me have fun again and don't tell me how I'm supposed to have fun.
They should make a new TW Empire...really! And I played it since the first TW came out. Loved It. A new Empire and a new Medieval. What I miss, like in Empire is the visible progress in research and progress. I don't like too many statistical advantages, I need to visibly see them.
I've gone from wishing they'd make Medieval 3 and Empire 2 to kind of not wanting them to do that in their current state, in case it turns out like Rome 2. A botched shell of what it should have been. When they've done it they won't do it again. I want to see them make a solid historical TW first. Until then I don't know if I want them to touch Medieval 3/Empire 2.
I love how Thrones of Britannia was that bad that it even hasn´t been mentioned in this video. And how Attila has been recognized as a good game after the years, I love Attila mate, is my favorite TW ever. I always being very interested in Three Kingdoms, sadly that I don´t have enough time nowadays to really enjoy a game as I did with Rome II, Shogun and Attila.
The people that say dynasty warriors and Total War Three Kingdoms are alike either they never played Dynasty or are biased .Three kingdoms is a historical game if you have a clue about chinese history and as a bonus the game offers you the choice to play full historical , as you can remove the general overpowered mechanic.
The Fantasy mode feels kind of like Dynasty Warriors, but definitely aren't alike aside from that per se. Seeing a general destroy entire units is pleasing, and similar. But definitely not hack & slash.
@@vinniciuselion4544 so that would make it similar to Dynast Warriors? A game in which key figures wipe thousands of units. I.e. Lu-Bu especially. Or do you mean something else?
@@vinniciuselion4544 See Rome's first few encounters with Elephants for a historical reference to how effective Elephants were. Perhaps not later on, but they are definitely a shock factor on the field...
three kingdoms is pretty true to the source material the romance of the three kingdoms which has a lot of emphasis on the powerness of legendary characters. Which is what dynasty warriors are also based on when one general can hold on thousands of troops.
I currently play Third Age Total war Divide and Conquer Sub mod for Medievil total war 2. Still greatest total game for me and is all fantasy but is just done so well through free lance amazing people from coders to graphic artists. New games the only things I appreciated was the graphics everything else I disliked. I will say somehow even units in Third age total war the units look absolutely amazing. Just fits the Narrative that game companies cant make good games anymore the biggest example recently was DIablo4 with that forgetting all the good things about D3 and nothing like D2 which is what most people enjoyed and grew up on. Honestly just sad as a gamer to see this and makes me not excited about anything new from game titles I grew up with.
It would be great if the historical players finally got a game they loved, so we can all get back to the battles that matters like screaming about the unit cards.
I very much enjoyed the video. Historical, Fantasy, or mixed, makes absolutely zero difference to me. It's about the game itself. Earlier CA games had depth & complexity that required thinking and decision making by the player. They required your full attention to play & survive. Now, a common description used to describe their games, "dumbed down". They've become simplistic point & click action games that require very little attention or strategy. Both in the campaign & real time battles. My kid's FREE Roblox games are more in depth. Pharoah, sadly looks no different. For some people, that may be what they like. Maybe, that is the direction CA feels will make them more money. For me, sadly, I'm not interested. But, I will continue to look at their future projects in hope of finding that same magic I once found with CA.
Indeed, once IM empire i was hellbent of finding something new and interesting But realize it was gonna be recruiting whatever is best, battle and just redo same strat for another 200 times Really shame, cuz they put seemingly good work into creating alot of units, but most of those units are there only to be slaughtered by the player I did really like Three kingdom tho
6:50 "As balls slapped into the behind like me on a friday evening" HOW IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT THAT ONE LMAO!!!! LMAO YOU EARNED THIS SUB LMAO IM CRYING
Empire Total War was my favorite, yeah it had it's share of bugs and mechanical annoyances - but the setting and scope of the gameworld was awesome. The good old days.
No way you actually believe rome 1 is the most technical or that in looks anywhere near as good as the remaster 💀 bruh nostalgia hits yall hard when talking this franchise
some people unironicaly believe rome 1 and med2 had the most in depth campaigns of the series , im not saying those games are bad (i love them) but come on lol
9:34 you’re doing a wonderful job of articulating why I only play the late total wars to mess around with arrows or muskets. The way infantry collides and interacts just doesn’t work for me like how it does in Rome or Medieval 2
I like the fantasy settings, I like the historical settings, I like the half-way mythical settings. What I don't like are bugs, over-simplistic, poor balancing and tedium. I have recently gone back to a modded MTW2 and my god was it buggy as hell when it came to trying to move your troops around. Trying to just get the troops to do what you told them was a nightmare. Things like diplomats on the map as characters, having to return to specific cities to replenish troops etc, it was all tedious and added nothing to the game. Ultimately I don't mind what direction CA take, as long as the games are ultimately enjoyable. I don't think TW has died, it's just had some rocky patches. Nearly every franchise with as many games as TW will go through this as they try to keep things interesting. Some new ideas hit, some miss. Everyone was saying Empire and Warhammer would be absolute failures for daring to deviate from the tried and tested and yet both were successful. The worst thing CA can do is to just keep churning out the same thing over and over again without trying new ideas. On balance, I'd still say the games are good.
Completely agree. I love total war for what it is. Both historical, fantasy, and mixed. But I would love more depths to the games. Like could you imagine Total War battlefields mixed with Crusader Kings campaign style (I know that is WAY too much to ask for but atleast something along those styles). Also think they should start branching out more in time periods. Maybe even a WW1 or WW2 themed one where the whole world could be the map. (Also a very big order but one can still hope)
Totally disagree, other than buggy troop movements. Medieval 2 had far and above the best campaign system, without the stupid recruiting units in the field, it made sense to have to move an elite unit back to a certain settlement to recruit them, not just auto replenish Bs.
I've said it for years, the instant that TWW1 dropped, historical TW titles were dead. There was no way CA would EVER go back to history in any serious way. Everything I've heard for TW3K, and Troy, the only options are "fantasy" and "fantasy-light." Thrones was nothing more than a half-assed throwaway that gives a focused part of Age of Charlemagne. The money that CA has been able to rake in for the fantasy titles and be able to use more creative liberties that are permissible in fantasy, but not in history, means that for the history titles aren't something the fans of that aspect will come flocking toward.
it's true that CA are messing things up , but can't help but be a fanboy of total war xD despite all it's a very unique game, no other strategy game will ever be on total war level .
That attitude is part of the problem
@@the_uglysteve6933 Currently loving wh3.. three kingdoms was awesome as well. I will be preordering pharaoh
It's true. They say Crusader Kings or Europa Universalis is on par... But nope.
@@VerekEdits why would you preorder a digital video game? Are you worried the virtual copies will run out? Or is giving a company an interest free loan for products whos quality you cannot verify just good?
Honestly what you said is part of the problem. CA has very little competition for what they do and fans are left with few options if they release subpar content or a game they do not enjoy
"He who defends everything defends nothing" -- Frederick II
maybe they should learn from their own loading screen quotes...
ah?
@@matiashofmann6010 medieval 2
"A friend to all is a friend to none"
"Give my dream back raven! The moon you woke me to is misted over."
The Stupor Mundi knew... 😀
After having played it since Rome1 i honestly don't care if its fantasy or historical accurate. I think the reason total war is dying is because of the overoptimalisations that turned into dumbing down of mechanics. That and their lack of innovation.
There used to be a time where each solider in any given unit was its own thing, having its own healthbar, blocking chance etc. It felt complex and real.
Nowadays all units are one big bar that are represented by some guys on screen and its boring af
I remember watching a single hastati fight like a monster in rome 1 and killing 5 guys on his own in rome 1. Me and my brothers always watched close up fights of troops.
totally agree. Its now turned into a stat competition. The weight in fights is gone. I could watch medieval 2 combat for hours and still do so because as you say it felt like a story and is just that entertaining. Also the whole armor upgrade system that you could apply from the campaign map and it transitioning into actually changing your units visually on the battlefield I think is still the best feature of any total war game over the last 17 years. Which for some reason CA dropped and has never replicated since. Its so sad and I hate how they do the cost analysis design of modern triple A studios. Its just stupid and frankly BS how much they Nickle and dime this series.
The popularity of a Total War: Middle Earth would be legendary. Look at Divide and Conquer for Medieval 2.
@@robosoldier11 have you even touched any of the warhammer series?
play the game man, u are talking nonsense
Another thing I miss is the overall vibe of earlier Total War games. Jeff van Dyck's music helped set a mood that was somber, dark, and gritty. The menus with their silhouette art and ominous music. It really shows in the art direction that spectacle and making big, bombastic, but ultimately empty set pieces is their new focus.
The Rome and Medieval 2 soundtracks are the best ones they are sooo good. The vibe from the darker maps with the music was definitely better.
Rome soundtrack is phenomenal!
Shogun 2 is great as well and don't forget FOTS.
You are right on this. There is definitely something missing from the atmosphere. Whereas I used to open up the old TWs and get hyped to play the game while loading into the main menu now its... I don't know it just feels lacking. I don't necessarily want the silhouette backgrounds of the early games but I want something that gets me excited to jump back in. The menus since have been so plain with only a few exceptions.
Not to mention the overall sound design of Rome, Medieval 2 and Shogun 2 are unmatched. Which sells everything you visually you see on the screen, those games maybe not have always looked super amazing, but backed with their great sound design you feel the special effects in your whole body just from the audio alone as your imagination fills in the blanks. Newer total has a problem of sounding too realistic, low volume and dull, makes all the visual flaws more pronounced.
Historical titles is also very connected to ones fantasy. I've played hundreds of hours in Empire, Medieval, Rome and Atilla. I would lie if I wouldn't admit that a lot of my enjoyment is part of my ability to find myself imersed into the setting. I don't need dragons and demons for that.
Looking like Pharaoh will be historical, fingers crossed. Seems smart if they keep making 1 game historical & another that isn't? Appeases both groups & prevents the feeling of indecision
@@MaLordWotanthere are too many total war fantasy, also half of it is shit, they should done medival 3, napoleon or empire 2 or maybe victoria era
@@ksiaze649 uhu that's why Warhammer has been the most popular and most profitable series for Total War ever, because most of it is 'shit'... I can agree that historical can be fun every now and then but that doesn't take away the fact that fantasy is just way more enjoyable for way more people. At the end of the day CA is a company that wants to make money, and Warhammer 3 will bring make more money than Pharaoh or Medival 3 ever will. This is no hate towards historical, just facts.
Im playing Rome 2 Hannibal now since I never did before and I recently got into the history a bit more. Sadly the campaign mechanics always let you down a little bit. Its still immersive.
Total Warhammer 2 was easily the best game they did so far. I didnt play the 3. yet but will in a short while so maybe that will be the best. When you know a bit about the lore its really immersive as well.
@@MaLordWotanindeed
How could you not even mention Shogun 2? It was a masterpiece
He completely skips over both Medieval 1 and 2 as well. Really annoyed me.
@rorschach1985ify Literally clicked on the video to hear about Shogun 2 and Medieval 2, but alas nop. He gets an angry emoji face for that.
@@rorschach1985ify I was going to say the same thing, those were two great games.
Agreed, no Shogun 2 and neither of the Medievals mentioned is a complete sin for the subject of this video.
I'd definetly draw a graph of my experience of the series as increasing all the way up to a peak at Medieval 2, down for Empire, increasing back up a bit for Shogun 2 then dropping off completely for Rome 2. Walked away from the series after.
Didn't Shogun 2 used the same engine as Empire? So why would the supposed ranged focused engine works well for melee in shogun 2
It ended, when they made it harder and harder to mod it. I honestly believe that TW thrived on mod content, like the LotR mods etc.
wtf are u talking man. TW warhammer has an amazing modding community. there are overhauls that takes a month to update after a patch release. you just are using your head canon
@@matiashofmann6010 dude they made it nerly impossible to mod Attila and all other new TW titles. Modders JUST cracked the code for some of them to make full overhaul mods.
@@Obsidianen Mods have been up for those games for years though? It wasn't just cracked, what?
@@seanwalters1977what he means are the source code. previous total war titles have mod friendly source code which allowed for easy modding but for the later total war games the source code is very gated making it very un mod friendly. mods may exist for total warhammer and total war 3 kingdoms but not as large a scale as medieval 2, total war rome, and other earlier total war games. a similar example for this is dragon age origins which allowed mod on its source code while dragon age inquisitions source code does not and to this day no one has managed to crack its source code except for the source code of its character creation and color schemes which led it having mods limited to texture and script value mods
@@westerwald3923 Full conversion mods for the historical titles he mentioned have been around since 2019 at least. The code was not JUST cracked.
For me, it is the endless dlc's that killed it for me. And the focus on abilities and gameified mechanics
Endless DLC = Endless cash flow.
not when people stop buying the game lol
@@AtheismF7W
That's it for me as well. When I buy a Game, I want to buy the Game...not a Trial Version where 80% is locked behind an additional paywall.
The focus on having a sole lone unit instead of a commander unit ruined several games for me, I really dislike that stuff.
It's just dull watching a single dude fight off 150 assailants at once, regardless of if you control the 150 assailants or the 1 dude..
@@gronizherz3603 I think the only time I liked the single entity units was in shogun 1, where the guy was still just a normal dude, just inordinately skilled with his weapon, therefor allowing him to easily die if he was to be exhausted or if a lucky hit that broke through his armor hit him
The thing with Thrones of Britannia and why its ignored is because it is just Attila. It's an Attila mod basically. It's actually quite good it just came out at a weird time when people were hoping for a lot more.
Thats the best advertisement for Britannia that I've ever heard.
Holy shit, I think I'll actually try it. Attila was the pinnacle of 2nd gen Total War
@@Frontline_view_kaiser Yeah its a great game and has some fantastic mods too, and it doesnt have the problems or troy or 3k. repeating myself but its literally an attila vikings expansion. Which is obviously why people were unhappy at the time, but years down the line that's sounding pretty good.
ToB has the biggest number of unique siege maps in series btw.
@@Frontline_view_kaiser you should. Its amazing
Its a sequel to the kingdoms Britannia campaign like Attila is a sequel to barbarian invasion technically.
There's a lot of unexplored territory for them to branch into for a solid historical foundation: The Wars of the Roses, English Civil War, 30 Years War, US Civil War, the Victorian era, and of course I've been patiently waiting over a decade for Empire 2
CA are too much of bitches to do the American Civil War
I really want that game set in the 16-17th century and the Victorian era
I would have thought that these days the Victorian era would be deemed far too… problematic. Way too close in time for them to be comfortable with, especially with European empires carving up Africa. The twitter mob would go berserk!
@@nomorechess
Honestly I as an Empire fan don't. I personally prefer the early to late age of gunpowder weapons.
@@greva2904 Yeah, that's the thing, I worry about that. But most of the audience doesn't really care too much about that so I hope they're not too afraid to take that course. It's even better if other nations other than the West or Japan can have the option to modernize too. Still, this might be far fetched and won't see the light of day. Hope some company out there are willing to be competitors of CA and make a game set on that era.
Eh, my biggest beef with this franchise is that they don't seem to try to expand the complexity and depth of these games. Some people believe that Shogun 2 was the pinnacle of new-engine TW series. I can see why. It has really easy to learn but hard to master mechanics. You had to utilize every mechanic in the game to win. That's not quite the same in WH2 or WH3, where you can basically ignore faction mechanics and just pump out units and conquer the world.
Another thing is optimization which has been a menace in newer TW games. It reached its absolute peak in WH3 having major problems, especially in anything above 1080p. What really bothers me as well is that TW games have really, really poor AI. The amount of cheese you can inflict on the enemy is absolutely unimaginable. All the stuff you can make them do, it's like playing a puppet master. It only exacerbated the issue of artificial difficulty. AI, instead of actually doing all the clever things that are within the scope of their possibilities, it just gets more resources and higher stats to compensate the fact that you can troll them with single unit entities and heroes.
It's sadly the life cycle of a lot of game franchises, Shogun 1 started it all and Medieval 1 & 2, and Rome 1, continued to add new features and mechanics, only to then start being simplified down to streamline the game play.
We've seen this happen in a multitude of other franchises too, where important mechanics are stripped away to make the game more accessible to a wider audience.
The AI is annoying because people defend the enemy just getting stat boosts in higher difficulties as fine when that is called out as lazy with any other franchise. I dont know why the fans give them a pass on stat boosted difficulty scaling and act like it's some impossible feat to improve the brain dead AI. I was playing ultimate general the other day and was taken off guard when my undefended artillery was captured because the AI sent a skirmisher unit to sneak up behind my line. That doesn't happen in TW and the Ultimate general/admiral series shows it's possible.
@@stephengrigg5988 ah there's nothing like the stat boosts, nothing like seeing a unit of peasants/mobs go blow for blow against higher tiered units for no reason other than the fact their stats get quadrupled
You have completely missed why Total War died. It wasn't because of latest titles being between fantasy and history, it was because of the game mechanics being dumbed down or removed completely. Just have 2 units fight in Attila and compare it to Warhammer. Btw, Thrones of Britannia had the most number of the unique siege maps in series.
Everything has been dumbed down....Just scroll past a unit in Atilla vs a unit in Thrones and look at the unit models. Modern total war its all cut and paste. Atilla they all had different armor/helmets, unit commanders, hair, color patterns, standard bearers, attack animations. It was just overall a much better game to look at.
While matched combat wasn’t perfect I prefer units actually fighting them jumping at each other with over the top attack animations like it’s age of empire until one dies cus his invisible health bar became 0 and just falls over dead.
Dumbing down started after Medieval II. I'm still playing Empire today, but I wish it had the deeper mechanics of M2. My main focus is on the campaign, I spend 90% of the time in the "board game" mode. And as a board game, TW does no longer work, it lacks depth in every aspect. The realtime battles look beautiful, of course. TW just needs that little bit of Crusader Kings, at least the stuff they removed from Medieval II, put back in.
@@Kobold666 Absolutely correct. They began cutting down features severely following Medieval 2. Empire/Napoleon still had some things going for them, but not to the same degree. Come Shogun 2, the overall experience had been so dumbed down it's hard to believe. Atrociously oversimplied diplimacy with lots of AI issues. Severe restrictions on settlements and building types, cooldown abilities for combat, no retraining of units (armour upgrades). Shogun 2 still worked because the combat itself felt good, but the game itself is very simplistic and a husk compared to Med 2. But wow, after that it became a disastor. And all their games still suffer from this endemic.
@@Gdsryrox I mean as much as I love matched combat I feel like it just makes things alot more annoying. I mean like yeah sure people that spend their entire lives training to be elite soldiers should be extremely skilled in combat, but everytime I play a siege battle in rome 2 for example I end up spending like 5 minutes on the last unit alone because the chieftain and and his retinue of bodyguards are demigods that can slaughter half my roman army despite having like 10 javelins in their shields each. In warhammer 2 for example, sure, some lords are very much the same, same with monsters, but when it comes to elite infantry they can be defeated without dealing too much damage to you if you surround them with sheer numbers. Or vice versa, if you arnt careful with your elite units and decide to charge them into a bunch of overgrown rats they can easily find themselves overwhelmed because there are 50 rats per soldier poking sharp sticks into the plates of their armor.
Like the main reason I am in love with total war is because it is cinematic, which matched combat obviously helps massively with. But as someone who grew up on medieval 2 and rome 1, I am able to cope without it. And honestly, cant blame warhammer for lacking matched combat seeing the massive diversety of races. The matchups would be endless. There are actually extremely rare matched combat between skaven and elves.
Medieval total war 2 still holds the title for best atmosphere and vibes. An absolute masterpiece. I hope we get a medieval 3 one day.
Medieval 2 Total War, not Medieval Total War 2. I hate how CA changed the naming scheme
Nah. Just use game enhancing mods, Stainless Steel or SSHIP. Medieval 3 wouldn't be as good, just look at later additions. DLCs (that should've been included in base game) in the price range of AAA game, hero units, weird battle mechanics... This is not about fantasy, this is about the fact they are one step from introducing microtransactions into the game.
Couldn’t agree more, have been playing M2 on IPad and it’s actually been improved, not just ported. This leads me to hope for M3, else why bother to change anything for a simple port.
I dont think Medieval 2 deserves that trophy. Medieval 2 atmospheric design is quite bland compared to the likes of Rome 2 and absolutely doesnt hold a candle to the Warhammer series. When it comes to artstyle alone warhammer kicks every other contender out of the park. Warhammer is to Medieval 1&2 what STALKER is to Battlefield.
Medieval and Battlefield have a charm rooted in realism. Warhammer and STALKER are the atmospheric juggernauts of their genres due to the nature of the tools at their disposal alone.
@@dektarey4024 Medieval 2 is 17 years old and many people still prefer it. That says something.
For me Rome 2 was where I really started to have issues with CA and Total War. It was after Attila and before Warhammer was when I checked out. Then made the move to paradox games.
when rome 2 came out it forced me to as my pc couldnt handle rome 2 at the time. sad to see they still yet to release a proper historical TW game since Rome/Atilla. (the new egypt one i thought was returning but its just special this or that which i guess works but its not for me)
Still wishing they dion't skip the entirety of the 16th & 17th century, would have loved to see something like Pike & Shot Total War.
Starting where Medieval II ended, Castle, and City walls slowly adapting to the new warfare.
Fall of the Samurai falls (hehe) in this period. Or at least it mixes traditional with modern warfare and the player has to strike a balance.
@@sanchaweboFots takes place at the end of the 19th century not really the same
Play the Otomo in the Sengoku Campaign in Shogun 2. Not only do you get to play pike & shot, but you get to play pike & shot and bring the GLORY OF CHRIST TO A HEATHENISH LAND
For me it was Rome 2 that tipped the boat. The features they got rid of from older games like Med2 really limited the player within the context of the campaign missions. Personally I've had more fun playing Rome TW remaster, and Med2, than Attila and every game after that. Seeing what they are doing to Pharoh now makes me causely optimistic. Yes I love the direction they are heading towards, but I hate the focus on characters rather than factions. I hate the limitations, and the time period. I would love a period that they have never touched before, but an interesting one where you can show a lot of variety. Time periods like Thirty years war, Victorian era, The rise of Abbassids, and more very well documented periods should be prioritized rather than a perioid full of speculation.
Lots of OG fans are with u.
Rome 2 was mainstream anus. I have lost all faith in CA. All the OG devs have left, that's why these games suck anus.
Bro they even started to remove ingame multiplayer chat from the older titles and the fanboys are mocking anyone who is requesting it be maintained. Its actually disgusting how bad the fanboys have gotten and rotten the series. Medevial 2 and Shogun 2 were the last gasps of the series. Warhammer kinda revitalized it but I'd say thats more because of the setting rather then well total war.
@@pompeythegreat297 Exactly, historical hasn't been the same since Rome 2. Fantasy however has been doing extremely well so it's not that weird CA are focussing more on fantasy rather than historical. Besides, there are so much more fantasy titles that people would enjoy that I don't see a huge emphasis being put on historical any time soon, if ever.
Aye, I found the Attila campaign boring to play.
The base game with no DLC's is empty and incredibly tedious with nearly every battle being a city battle for example, particularly 'early game'.
You have to buy all the DLC's to bring some sort of viable interest and variation to the game, or mod the shite out of it, or both.
In essence, the game is locked behind incremental paywalls although the base game is charged at full price.
A shite business practice and I make sure I get all TW at bargain prices on Steam.
Yeah where's total war pike and shot.
brah, that longhaired hippie guy does not know what he is talking about.
the king himself!!
For me it was after Shogun 2 that the game really started to feel different and not as fun.
Same, think this guy's conclusions are a bit scuffed because he skips from Empire to Rome 2 and blames the issues in Rome 2 on the Empire engine.
If that was true then Shogun 2 would have suffered similar issues but it didn't and instead had the best combat and campaign of any TW game.
@@Seraphiel123 "best combat and campaign"
Wrong. The Combat in Shogun 2 suffered the exact issues as in Rome 2 with 1v1 combat, units sliding to get into place, missiles being overpowered, combat ending too fast and the campaign was criticized for mechanics like Realm divided. The reason it was better received was because they tricked people into thinking that's how Samurai fought in Feudal Japan (they didn't) and they polished the game enough that it worked mechanically better and was far more balanced and they got the aesthetics and immersion down to a T. Without that it would have been almost as criticized as Rome 2 was but the polish and clear focus was what saved it.
@@rorschach1985ify Wrong combat works much better and isn't a total slog fest like it is in Rome 2 and is actually fun to look at
@@antzzors126 Wrong again, the same thing happens the same way, 1v1 with units sliding into place to get their animations synced with each other and Missiles always being overpowered to the point you could have a whole army of bow samurai and destroy an enemy force on it's own. My point wasn't even that Rome 2 was better in any capacity, Shogun 2 is simply a more polished version of it but the decision to use the same engine and style of melee combat is what ruined Rome 2 because at least you could get away with convincing people that Samurai fought 1 on 1, you could not do the same for Romans and Greeks which were all about formations.
@@rorschach1985ify bow sams werent even remotely overpowered, archers going against ashigaru units did fine, but anything above like 5 armor, felt like you were doing nothing in kill potential.
Rome 1 and Empire were my absolute favorites. I remember me and my friend playing Rome and not knowing what we were doing lol, but I also remember just going over the empire TW tech tree poster. I even pinned it on my wall. I’m a little sad to see where TW has gone but I’ll always hope the next game is better. This series is special!!
Empire was the point where this series jumped off a cliff.
Just a few words to say that Shogun 1 is still a very, very valid game. If you don't give a single damn about 2D troops and the absence of actual pathfinding (and I mean, it doesn't take that much...) it is still nowadays a great gaming experience.
One I fell in love with was Medieval. Loved the titles, the intrigue, the princesses and courtiers doing missions while also having a battlefield mode. Nothing like it existed in early 2000s.
TWII again, picked a great time in history, with the crusades. I wonder if they could do anything w the World Wars; or Warhammer 40k.
I agree with this analysis. I started with RTW and M2TW. I love the Warhammer titles but honestly the fighting doesnt seem as crunchy and impactful as getting a flank or rear charge on someone in Rome and M2. One thing I really miss from Rome is being able to go into rendered views of your cities complete with citizens. That's something that needs to come back.
Amen. I loved building a new building and then going into the city to see what it looked like, see the scale of my buildings and how much larger the city has become. I always wished it'd improve and show back up with even more features like the public order of the city changing how the citizens or soldiers in the city would act, some riots or violence when public order is bad. Or view the city during a siege to see how things are. It could have become a really cool feature to get more immersion but they've never gone back to it sadly.
I loved looking at my cities so much. Especially blended cities of different cultures. Every city truly felt unique
I remember wishing they'd add a Mount and Blade type view, where you could control the general within a settlement to walk around your towns and cities, maybe interact with citizens, who would act differently depending on public order, the wealth of the town, food supply, culture, religion and how recently it's been conquered and incorporated into your faction, what you decided to do with the town (occupy, enslave, or massacre) would all affect your interactions with the citizenry.
If you put a building into construction, or start training troops, you could go in to the city and actually see people building and training, if you built a garrison building, you'd see new soldiers start patrolling.
It would have added so much to the game to be able to see your impact on the world through the eyes of the average citizen just going through day to day life, but instead they chose to completely remove the feature
The problem to me its the big combat rework that they made since Rome 2.
Each soldier before had its own stats, which they used in combat.
Now an entire unit shares their HP bar which makes for scenes like: Front row gets shot but some random dude in the back falls dead.
Same not just that I found past Total wars games I could win easy now for some reason its more of a thought process to win I never liked the combat changes.
@@ghr501able you're complaining about the fact that you have to use strategy in a grand strategy game?? That's wild bro
@@blckpnk-rosee1223 Have you seen that because you put very hard in the battle category, enemy units get a secret 40% increase in all of their stats? Making many strategys actually useless?
@@szymonrozanski6938 yes, that’s why I play on very hard/normal. You can always use mods to get away from that artificial difficulty. But that doesn’t mean that no strategies work anymore. On the harder difficulties different strategies work.
Ranged units are so OP I is my pencer charges using infantry charging up front and my cavalry hitting them in the rear would just kill in the old games it doesn't have the same feeling or effect any more
Im not sure we should be praising CA for bringing back mechanics that were already a mainstay in older titles, these games should be increasing in complexity rather than dumbing down.
did resonant just sneak in, "balls flying into their backsides, like me on a Friday evening...." ?? lmfao
Just casual coming out
Rome 2 Total War was the most disappointing release I have ever experienced and was the tipping point for me. It took them two years to get the game into a state close to what they promised leading up to the game. I was following the hype pre release very closely and they straight up lied about features that would be in the game in addition to it not even being playable for most people like myself on release. It really was one of the early signs of things to come for the state of the video industry as whole becoming over reliant on releasing unfinished games with the hope they can patch them up later with updates.
i was like 13 at the time and was playing rome 1 since i was 6. When rome 2 came out and I played it on release I was literally crying because it was so bad and ran so poor.
yup and even after all the fixes the game still sucked battle wise
@@jacksmith-vs4ct i feel like rome 2 now has the best battle mechanics.
@@107598 You're looking at it through some thick rose-colored goggles then. I've just done an Arverni and Macedon campaign in Rome 2 and its battles are terrible, people can try about Warhammer all they want but at least Warhammer 1 and 2 had good battles (3's battles are fucking broken though) and are the closest to Medieval 2 we've gotten since they changed to the blasted Warscape engine.
@@spikem5950 ive played all of the total wars and still do but rome always brings me back if i want a good battle. Must admit the good battles dont happen vs AI
Interesting perspective. For me personally, the highlights were the first Medieval and later Shogun 2. The latter mostly for the beautiful art style and the duel animations. Going from a province-based movement map to a free move map made it unnecessarily hard for the AI. This wasn't an issue in MTW. Also the loyalty mechanic, and the fact that if a unit leader died someone else would come up having a name and traits and everything made for a good illusion that you're not commanding units, but men.
I remember my largest campaign as the HRE, slowly expanding in the early stages, then beating and occupying France in a massive battle for Paris with several thousands of troops. Once I expanded to Spain, I met the Almohads which at this point had taken control of all of North Africa and the Middle East. That theatre saw a series of huge battles with them and me cranking out troops and sending them to Spain continously. Battles would take real life hours, with tens of thousands of men fighting.
In comparison, all other Total War games seemed mundane and, oddly, much lacking in scale. Empire was my personal low point. Hyped to the max, in the end it offered very little gameplay-wise.
Yeaaa boi. My greatest campaign in ETW was with the English, and hundred of turns in, I encountered the Tyranids in the Balkans. So many armies clashed in thos provinces, and even though it was in normal difficulty, the AI put on a serious challenge, immersive and all. A decade after I spend 20h in W2TW and suddenly the AI just pumps out 4 doomstacks in a row, out of nowhere, and then the community says to me that "you should have a better mage by this turn", like... where's the sandbox aspect of the game we all loved!? Why should I need to follow strict gameplay guidelines in a game that supposedly was meant to free the player to rewrite history, lmao
I have multiple thousands of hours in Rome , Medieval 2, and shogun 2. Those were the peak for me
This video didn't age well, especially after the release of Pharaoh and it becoming very clear (Even though this was obvious before release) that this was a Troy reskin.
And there we have it: Pharaoh was a total failure. Nothing changed.
10,000+ hours TW player here. I miss the days of Admiral Price and Melkor. Thats it.
The reason I like fantasy is variety, great as shogun 2 may be to others I HATE the fact every army is the same until mid/late game
I fell in love with tw warhammer because at the time I bought it the factions and their base units were:
-empire, mixed, jack of all trades master of none, swordsmen
-dwarfs, defensive, high armor, slow, no cavalry, amazing artillery, dwarf warriors
-vampires, slow, weak, don't retreat, cause fear, cheap units meant to be cannon fodder, lords being key, skeletons
-orks, fast, cheap, low armor, aggresive, ork boiz
-bretonnians, shit cheap infantry, amazing expensive cavalry, men-at-arms/knights errant
-chaos, high armor, aggresive, powerful baseline in general units, chaos warriors
-beastmen, low armor aggresive units focused on devastating ambush charges, gors
-wood elves, low armor but mixed/defensive units, big focus on archery, ambushes and stalk, glade guard
I just want them to make a good game where the units aren't bugging out in their sprawls. And the camera and controls in battles and map are top notch.
When a game has a good camera, you don't notice it. When it has a bad one you notice it constantly.
"Men flying as balls whacked into their behind like me on a Friday evening" is a joke that came out of fucking nowhere and make me spit out my coffee.
I think seeing Troy and Three Kingdoms as either Historical or fantasy is the issue. I see them as specifically Mythical games, rooted in our world but with characters who are larger than life, which was the exact reason that those stories became popular. RoTK became popular because of it's characters, The Illiad was classical because it was all about the "heroes" of that mythical war. I truly do believe CA nailed it in regards to honoring the source material for both games.
Cant comment on Troy, but for Three Kingdoms, yes, they handled the release of splendidly, the DLC fell flat on its face however.
"Like balls whacked onto the behind like me on a Friday evening..." 😂😂
3k wasn't an attempt at a middle ground. It was an attempt to be accurate to a specific source that they chose.
MEDIEVAL 3! All I'm going to say, For me, they can play around, with anything they want but if they can do a medieval 3 right and then maybe an Empire 2 after that then, only then will they regain the confidence of people in historical total war.
I started with Shogun, way ahead of it's time, but the announcement of Pharaoh scares the hell out of me, your vid says it all.
I agree. My first TW game was Empire, then Medieval 2, Shogun 2. War hammer 1&2 after. But oh boy, I was not prepared for the Magnum Opus, the Cream of the Crop, Rome Total War. And Ive never looked back, no even the remaster holds my attention and awe like OG Rome Total War.
Good vid.
Yeh, good points.
I started with the 1st Shogun with very fond memories. 🙂
I have just been having a go at WH 3 and it's very well done and fun to play.
(Got WH 3 on Steam sale for very cheap earlier this year)
Troy is a beautiful game, solid ,much underrated and well worth a go.
You get to play as Agamemnon , or go along with Achilles and his temper tantrums or the honourable Hector, defending his brother's f**k up !.....as part of Homer's Illyad! What's not to like ;-)
3 Kingdoms (once you get past the cluttered screen, UI and confusing names, symbols etc) is an excellent game. It looks lovely aesthtically, plays well and the battle maps and atmosphere are lovely.
The army makeup (3 'retinues') , interplay between characters and the spy network system are really good parts of the game and are unique within the Total War series and I have enjoyed 3K a lot.
Rome 2 was not only a debacle on launch, the game was an unfinished mess with silly ideas, very bad AI, unstable and just a pain to play.
I waited for the game to be out for a couple of weeks and seeing all the very bad (justified) backlash it got I was hesitant so I got it from Pirate Bay to demo it with the intent to buy it.
I uninstalled the game in less than a week because it was sooo shite.
CA not only released a game they well knew was a bag o' pesh, but they got caught out lying, releasing 'Pre-Alpha footage' of a carthage scenario that wasn't in the game as well as other bullshit such as shady business practice ie; ripping people off by selling the game for £50 then charging people MORE for the Greek cities 'DLC' that was already in the game etc etc.
'Ceasar in Gaul', although a good idea was unfinished and made in a lazy and rushed way and wasn't worth the money.
CA began to try and get YT channels that were critical of them and the game censored and shut down and so on.
After all this I vowed to never give CA full price for a game again and I haven't, only obtaining their games at bargain prices on Steam.
I eventually got Rome 2 'Emperor edition' for £7 well over two years after release and I ONLY play it with the absolutely fantasitc overhaul mod 'Divide et Impera' which makes it an actual historical game and I still go back and play it to this day.
Rome 1 was the benchmark, the standard to which all other TW games are measured because of it's impact.
Everyone loved it and rightfully so as it ticked all the 'historical' boxes and was very fun to play.
I still remember battles and parts of campaigns that I played even today, no other TW has ever really done this before or since.
We await 'Pharoh' ... with cautious optimism.
"The sinews of war....." and all that.
;-)
Great video. Took me back in time quite a bit.
I started my journey of the TW-series with Rome 1 and Medieval 2. Played them a lot.
Empire was the first one I didn't get soon after launch, but rather a couple of years later. Rather, I followed the release through fans' descriptions of the game. It's great.
My story with Rome 2 and Attila was quite similar: Followed the hype of the games through the internet and Let's Plays, and only got to play them after some years when my laptops caught up with the technical side of things. Can't believe it's 10 years ago already - it makes my nostalgic. But by now I really love these two titles as well.
Today, I'm kinda out of Total War - my PCs are just not capable of running the modern titles.
But I'm not sure I'd like the direction the series is going, if they didn't make a proper historical title again.
why'd you neglect the historical modes both 3K and Troy have? its wild people either refuse to mention them or say they're lack luster when they don't even play it themselves. though the 40 minutes of playtime you mentioned you had in Troy would explain that i guess
For him Pharaoh and its immortal leaders is more historical than having a game where you actually manage your dynasty
Saying history vs fantasy is missing the point. Its a really long discussion but what I would sum up is how you feel when you play the game, in older title I play it for the battle, I feel like a general and I feel the satisfaction after winning a hard battle ie inferior troops vs better troops but I win due to using the terrain, positioning etc. The totalwar these day are gigantic spread sheets, terrain don't mean a thing, (ie in WH they literally have to post the stat buff and debuff for terrain for me to realized that its there while in older title after playing a few battles I realized the impact of terrain it immediately). So totalwar going down hill is not because of history or fantasy, it's because CA is getting lazy and just spreadsheet everything instead of putting in the time to craft up good and intuitive mechanic like in the older titles.
The total war mummy they just announce has this mechanic where arrow would shred armour, which is kinda dumb tbh since killing heavy armoured unit is the job of slinger. But what would have been good mechanic is certain projectile could make the unit loose shield like the roman throw their pilum before going to battle which make their enemy shields useless. But nope just decreasing the health bar.
thats an old interview though
because it is a fact the historic modes are just a second thought and lackluster. CA doesnt want to make historical content they want to cater to fantasy fanboys. And that is the exact reason the franchise will die.
I’ve played TW since Rome 1 and it’s been my favorite series ever since, I also have loved the warhammer 40k/fantasy settings for almost as long as I’ve played TW so I consider myself a lover of both historical AND fantasy and the notion that historical titles would be boring in comparison is so dumb I don’t know if I believe CA actually feels that way. If CA made a full historical title (Pike and Shot please!) and fixed the issues with battles while also making a deep and engaging campaign side, nobody would be complaining there are no dragons flying around… I mean come on
The series died the second they started making wr hammer games and adding stupid elements like heroes and magic.
Shogun Total War wasn't random happenstance, the entire game series is based on an old board game also called Shogun, then Samurai Swords, and then Ikusa in its final iteration. So many staple elements of the Total War series we lifted directly from this board game. Things like armies having a fixed number of units in it, generals leveling up the more battles they fight, hiring assassins to kill enemy characters. Even the construction mechanic, random event cards, and building up province garrisons are straight from the original board game. CA didn't reinvent the wheel or have some groundbreaking idea, they were just the first to figure out how to digitize a boardgame that had been around since the 80's.
I agree with you video. A big part to me is the engine they are using. The games have felt bad since Medival 2. They need an engine that has a better feel like the old one. Once they switched in Empire, it gave it a arcade and toy feel. Visually, it is good, but the changes and fights lack the weight that Rome and Medival 2 had. I still really enjoyed the games, Troy being a highlight for me due to the mechanics of it, but they lack some spirit.
Copium. Major copium. Medieval 2 was really bad. It didn't feel bad, because the battles were so simple the AI couldn't fuck them up.
@@JJokerMoreau yeah okay and warhammer TW is actually good lol nah its trash and the AI still can't play it XD
@@JJokerMoreau You're the only one huffing the copium dumbass. What he said is 100% right, Warscape engine games cannot do melee combat well at all. Not to mention all your harping on "muh AI" ignores that most modern TW AI acts just as if not even stupider than the older ones but get by thanks to the game using cheats to make it harder for you.
@@JJokerMoreauThat’s literally the only issue in Medieval 2. Still as a 16 year old game is better than any of the following total wars.
@@jacksmith-vs4ct Given literally everyone is playing Warhammer in droves as the most popular TW in history and in pure numbers, you're going to have to try harder than that.
spot on video. I agree with almost everything you mentioned. However I do not have ANY hope for Pharoh, but I do admire your optimism.
Personally I loved the "Romanticized" take of Three Kingdoms. For alot of history, the way history was passed down and spread is through larger than life characters. There are many periods in history that people have no clue about, but you could mention a key person during those times and they would at least know of them (i.e very few people I know have heard of the Hundred Years War, but know Joanne d'Arc.) So to reflect a time in history that does indeed have a very romanticized version widely known, I personally see as an admiration to those who preserved that history, and would hopefully at least intrigue people into learning the true history behind it all. Now does every time period need this form of romanticization, not at all. But when applied correctly, I think it would provide a great chance for more to become intrigued.
>> I personally see as an admiration to those who preserved that history, and would hopefully at least intrigue people into learning the true history behind it all.
What good does that do if Total War games no longer portray "the true history behind it all"? The original Shogun Total War literally came with an encyclopædia of the Sengoku Jidai.
@@mbg4681 Little lost at the question cause of the provided example, but will try to respond to the best my understanding. If you don't like the romanticized version option, simply turn it off. Simple as that. Even with the romanticized version, there will mostly still be truth in there as a majority of units are still representative of what would be accurate. I think the key is the need to have the option available to players, and personally if you're trying to learn history from a video game of any kind that is the completely wrong way to go about it. If Total War wants to go away from historical into fantasy, I have no quarrel with that. I think Troy was poorly executed and basically had an identity crisis, being half-baked in history and fantasy (granted fixed after time , but damage was done.)
As for having historical information available in-game, there's two reasons why i would not see a need for that. It's a game if I want to read about the historical context of a game I would do it later as I would rather be playing the game, and I can see the feature getting little use, so why place extra burden on the developer.
@@C.Kado18 >> If you don't like the romanticized version option, simply turn it off. Simple as that.
I'm not just talking about 3k, I'm talking about the overall direction of the TW franchise. I have no problem with CA making TW fantasy games. I just want them to _also_ make the types of historical games that made them big in the first place.
>> I think the key is the need to have the option available to players
If the options are equivalent, great. But that's not how TW is shaping up lately. We'll see how Pharaoh turns out.
>> If Total War wants to go away from historical into fantasy, I have no quarrel with that.
Yes, I'm sure you're happy that you are getting what you want. Strangely, I don't find that reassuring.
it's also important to say that 3K period itself is already romanticized by historical chinese artists and authors and then becoming what we saw today, it's kind of like the Arthurian legend (but with historical basis) of the whole Eastern Asia so it's really a wise choice to romanticize this period. However I'm really not so sure for periods like Pharoh
Except the "historical" modes are lazily tacked on and poorly implemented which just shows that CA is giving no regard for any historical fans and turning them away more. Also it is bullshit to say "few people" have heard of the hundred years war when it is one of the most popular wars in Medieval history and well known by people in Europe and even outside of that. The only people who only know of Joanne are the kind of people who are not into history at all and much less into video games.
One of the things that impresses me most about the Total War modding scene is how much effort they put into drawing from historical accounts and artifacts to inform how they're going to populate the map with factions. It's kinda inspiring. Needless to say the whittling away of the historical content from CA isn't impressive at all and made far worse when added to the constraints that they imposed on their games for modders. RIS's absolutely epic 1700 settlement map with dozens of greek factions alone and who knows how many others beyond that isn't being made on the modern total war engine but a remastered Rome1 engine.
Getting back into a more concrete historical setting will certainly help CA with the historical fans but actual support for the modding scene will allow CA the margin for error where they can make an approachable game suitable for a broad audience but also satisfy the history nerds.
I think CA Sofia deserves more credit. The bodyguard upgrade mechanic is something I’ve wanted to see for years.
no they dont, they butchered history, god hector ....
Its funny that the legendary UA-camr volound already said this since at least 5 years ago.
Tbh total wars decline started way before this with the introduction of "hero characters" and provinces which led to this almost RPG total war series where it's all about skill trees and spectacle over tactics on the battle side and the province system on the city side, killing any form of true freedom.
I still hold the skaven mechanics were the greatest revolution tw had made in a long time and then it was undone with the hero packs and ever increasing need to shoehorn named characters.
So you mean the original Shogun ruined the franchise. I waited a LONG time to have my Kensai back, lol. I feel as far as WH 3 is concerned, it is the paying more for less with the DLC.
@@AstralJumper there's a reason none of the subsequent tw had hero units, it shits on the idea of the game being a tactical simulator. Never forget at one point tw hd it's own TV show it was considered that "realistic" that was always the franchise strength imho. Unfortunately for the dev team it seems that they can't conceptualise fantasy and realism in the same game, hence the decline. No one minds paying for dlc, when it's good.
Can we settle for a smaller less standardized looking unit? One more like the elite infantry with a smaller retinue. @@paul-antonywhatshisface3954
I would have to really question what are being considered "hero units" seeing as basically every game has had something that could be considered as such. Med 2 had the spies and merchants and priests. Empire had gentlemen and rakes. Rome 2 had spies, prophets, and captains, etc.
I will agree that provinces caused a lot of wholey unnecessary wtf-ery however.
@@silverkingisley6438 well I mean the obvious answer is that those units didn't fight on the battlefield and walk around tanking units singlehandedly. They were strategic assets not battlefield units
Really excellent vid, sums up my feeling about TW perfectly. Pharoah sounds great and I'm in, like you, hoping for a return to form.
I really loved the historical total war series. I stumbled onto Manor Lords, which is about city building, economy, politicing with neighbors, and real time combat based on the citizens of your towns/cities. It's not done, but it's well underway and there was a preview demo that was a fully playable settlement game. I'm looking forwards intensely to seeing it develop and release.
Manor Lords has been on my wishlist for a while!
Want to see Medieval 3 some day. 2 was absolutely incredible. Really enjoyed the Fall of the Samurai expansion for Shogun 2 as well.
Oh yes. Medieval 2 and Shogun 2 were best TW games for me. Stopped following this series after Rome 2.
I actually never bought a new Total War game after Rome 2. I was so disappointed with this game and the subsequent non-historical games that I am still waiting for CA to produce a good historical game to buy. Rome 2 was defenitely the tipping point for me.
you havent really been missing out imo, I bought several of them afterwards both genres and its just meh to boring.
Go play thrones of Britannia lol
@@ashamahee Warhammer and Three Kingdoms is good.
Attila is even better than rome 2 imo.
@heitorpedrodegodoi5646 they have some good elements no doubt about it, but they lack that old melee combat system and sieges. Although I am no fantasy fan normally I did enjoy the way they implemented that stuff in warhammer. But if they would have done warhammer but with the old style melee and sieges man that would have been freakin epic.
In Rome 1 if a big battle was fought on the campaign map it would leave behind a historical marker telling you who fought there, and who won, and who lost. That gave battles abit more of significance to the player, and made actions across the entirety of the map feel more meaningful, and in ways mysterious. It was nice to run across historical markers across the map as you progressed as it gave nostalgia of your previous struggles, and victories that may have seem to be so long ago by that point in the game, but you kind of got a glimpse of the past. The General you used, and the soldiers that were there - your emotions, and ambitions, and worries of the time. Historical Markers were a nice touch, and should of been continued throughout the Total War series.
As a hardocre fan of the historical branch of the TW franchise ( which is the only I care about actually ) my biggest issue is that it stuck on ancient to early medieval era after the ETW-NTW. It didnt age up in history. They keep making multiple titles about ancient times again and again still. My insatiable desire always was to see a modern TW title based on Victoria era and later. Thats the reason I was forced to move to Paradox titles and Civilization.
Boring
id love to see a world wars or age industry setting 1910 -1950 with planes n stuff that would be cool and for a fantasy title in the same space how about a steampunk/ dieselpunk setting like iron harvest but total war i love those types of setting far more than ancient historical stuff with an exception for late medieval nothing beets a cavalry charge at field cannons
@@jimmunro4649 ancient is boring mind you
And Paradox games are boring as f* if you consider the baTTlLe mechanics of their games
@@wolfensniper4012 "ancient is boring mind you"
Says the twat who thinks a style of combat where everyone fights the exact same way is somehow less boring. Empire and Napoleon literally had no diversity, every single army was just a copy paste of the other with almost no uniqueness and the ones that did were shit because their "unique" units were outdated melee or bow armed units that would get wrecked by up to date gunpowder units. Even Shogun 2 felt more unique thanks to campaign mechanics and every unit feeling useful with no wasted slots.
Modern warfare doesn't fit in total war style of play...it's too big in scale, how would u do a battlefield where it spans miles
17:48 well that aged like milk.
I have a friend who works in the CA Sofia studio. I wouldn't hold my breath for Pharaoh as it's production is near identical to Troy's, a skeleton crew with a relatively small budget being forced to finish a game months before they can actually finish it
What a comedown for such a legendary developer
It will be partly understandable for a Saga title however I'll never understand that why CA decided to sell it as a main historical title with nearly zero improvements from Troy other than minor mechanism
I live only 15 minutes away from CA HQ here in sussex and game tested Pharaoh before it was announced (under an NDA so couldnt make public) and I immediately had the same reaction, in all ways it felt like Troy 2.0. There were some new features that were nice but nothing that was ground-breaking.
I think people just really really want another Medeval Total War. Knights, longbows an Mongols.
For me I would love if they did a Asia version of the Medeval time period. The mogols rise to power, the neighbouring nations, chinese dynasties, Korea etc.
i can't put my finger on it, but something about Warhammer 3 feels very different from 2. I remember playing the tutorial and getting very excited when I watched my elemental bear climb over a ledge to get at some archers. Hundreds of hours later, and I have not seen anything even half as cool as that. The gate bug has been in Warhammer since the first iteration, AND THEY STILL HAVEN'T BOTHERED FIXING IT! I'm sorry CA, but there's only so many passes you get from me.
People don't understand the warhammer 1 2 3 are buggy yes that's why mods exist the game I very good just you might not like that it's fantasy and that's fine
@@djoctavio1234 Dude, I'm a fantasy fanatic, The Hobbit and the Lord of the Rings where some of my favorite books as a kid. However, when the game is so buggy you can't go more than five battles without a post battle CtD, that's a problem. I have the community bug fix mod, but there's only so much it can do.
I whole heartily agree with you, however pinning all of Rome 2 issues on engine is being completely blind to how great Shogun 2 is.
3K was my first TW game, which I got due to my love of that period of history. Knowing the historical figures definitely helps make it more appealing, but I think that game has much better mechanics than the other titles. Everything feels so half baked in the other titles, like they want to give the illusion of mechanics that don’t really matter. The biggest issue that all TW games have is that winning battles feels meaningless. Crush 30 enemy armies? Maybe you move forward and take a couple plots of land…and more armies are already there.
That frustrated me in Shogun 2, but it also feels like the games really want you play in a very specific style. In shogun 2, the unit types were just obnoxious. To be fair, 3K has the same issue of most units being pointless, but at least in that game there weren’t constant doom stacks everywhere. Troy was just…balls. It’s such a struggle to take one tiny bit of land, the administration system nerfing your economy was dumb, and enemy armies could move way too far in a single turn. TW games pretend like you have a lot of options, but it always ends up feeling like dynasty warriors, except less fun.
Supplies should matter. They sort of do for like the first 10 turns in 3K…and then never again. If I kill 100k soldiers, it should have SOME effect on the enemy. Low population from recruiting should limit their options. If my opponent just gets another full stack next turn, and now the land I took is yet another side to defend…it just feels like I’m being punished for winning. I do wish 3K’s records mode had more love put into it, but until battles stop being meaningless grinds, it seems like a waste to me. And the diplomacy…it seems basically nonexistent to me in titles other than 3K.
Maybe I just don’t get the more standard TW titles, but it feels so one note and intentionally roadblocked to waste time that I don’t even view them as strategy games. I guess a lot of ‘strategy’ games suffer from this, but when the game is more about trying to abuse dodgy game mechanics instead of planning a military campaign, I tune out.
Rome 1 and Medieval 2 both have settlement population systems which prevent you from recruiting too much too fast, especially from small cities. It also allowed population transferring by recruiting a bunch from one city and then disbanding them in another. This was sometimes very helpful since city growth is percentage based in those games.
On that note Medieval 2 also had a system of only being able to recruit a set amount of any one unit type in a given time. Higher tier units took longer to be able to recruit again once you extinguished the pool.
I think both of these systems are way overdue from coming back, all historical titles should have them to make victories actually noticeably meaningful.
As hound said, Rome 1 and Medieval 2 have population systems that do affect recruiting. Rome 2 has an overhaul mod, Para Bellum, that adds in a very well-implemented population system in my opinion. You have three tiers of citizen types (4 if you count slaves) and the population a unit recruitment draws from corresponds to their unit tier. So for instance when I was playing the Arverni, to recruit Oathsworn I'd need to take from my noblemen population. More standard warriors took from the citizens population.
Imagine that you live in a small town that has one burger restaurant. Growing up you loved going there and really enjoyed their burgers. Then one day they said "We aren't serving burgers anymore, we only serve corndogs now." It upsets you because that was the only place in town you could get burgers, and now they only serve a product you don't like. When you complain about it people go "Well they make a lot of money on corndogs, so stop complaining." Or "Just eat corndogs" Or "They should never make burgers again because I only like corndogs." Maybe that's not a perfect analogy, but I think that's how I and a lot of other historical fans feel.
CA didn't die from Troy and Three Kingdoms. CA lost there historical fans by not catering to them. There has not been a serious historical game for some time. Yes they have essentially tried to pacify both communities by making Troy and Three Kingdoms. What I don't understand is why people think CA making generals hero units would be the intended idea going forwards. Frankly speaking both Troy and 3k are essentially marvel stories where you favorite hero meets another of your favorite heroes and they have a big battle. Troy is littered with amazing heroes of legend said to be blessed by gods fighting each other and seeing who would win. 3k has deified there generals through the fictional novel telling a biased take on historical events. Both settings have true historical context. Personally I think both Troy and 3k did exactly what I wanted them to do. Where my Generals win through formations and the heroics of individuals.
Saying all that let me be clear. Historical fans have reason to be upset since the last good historical title has been Rome 2. (I dont know how good Rome 2 is in comparison to Shogun 2 and Mediaeval 2). I think CA is trying to find a historical setting people would truly be interested in going forward. Since they can just keep making Rom3456, Shogun3456, and Medieval 3456. Perhaps they go into WW1 or retry a setting they did not do well at (thrones of Britannia).
we need Medieval 3 though, that game (if done correctly would be absolutely amazing and would bring back hope for historical fans. all they have to do is build off of Medieval 2, and add new features on the campaign map and in battle (i think destructible cities and fire being able to spread from Pharaoh would be a great addition, and a return to bloodlines and even more diplomacy options would be great). The map would have to be huge for my liking however, at least 20 settlements in every country
Generally most were asking for Medieval 3 or Empire 2 or Shogun 3. I believe most were unhappy with how CA treated Historical Titles after Rome 2, many wanted CA to go back to its root and improve upon the mechanics and not striping them or downgrading them. Despite its flaws, 3K and Troy did bring in improvements that many were asking before such as improved diplomacy in 3K and good map design in Troy. WH Trilogy is great but its too arcadey for me
I loved how they say Pharaoh will be next historical TW. I expected a Bronze Age based Attila, but then I saw that trailer with a screaching, fur-armored neanderthal, and I was out intantly.
It's not because you make a total war game set in a fantasy universe that it must have a heroic fantasy gameplay, look at the Divide and conquer mod for Medieval 2 : it has a fantasy setting and an "historical" gameplay
Perfect overview of everything. So grateful you mentioned Thrones even if only briefly 😅
I still have huge doubts about Pharaoh. We'll see what they do with Medieval III.
If you don't understand why Three Kingdoms' Romance mode makes perfect sense as an option then you're literally just being stubborn.
I really enjoyed the first Medieval Total War. It was like nothing else I had played before. Then I bought Empire and that was (except the bugs ) great game too. I was spending all my gaming time to play total war and was not even getting bored. Last game that I really enjoyed was Attila as historical. After Atilla I tried ToB. Its battles were very good honestly, however its campign was not enough for me to continue on playing. They also left the game uncomplete. It has Dlcs button which includes no dlcs.
I agree the analysis. I do not like a game if it combines the real and fantasy. I like it when it is all fantasy or all real. Today I am not sure about Pharoah actually. It looks too much to Troy. I hope it does not shares the same destiny as it.
ughh. How did you enjoy Medieval? I hated that title. Turn base was all wrong and all provinces would rebel on you regardless of what you did to stop it and the units the rebels would get were way beyond anything they could possibly get like mounted armoured knights and trebuchets. I deleted that game in disgust. Rome 1 and Shogun 2 is where it's at for me.
@@gothamgoon4237 " Turn base was all wrong"
How? If anything the more risk style map made the AI move and regroup it's forces better so it would attack and defend more decisively then they do in Rome 1.
"all provinces would rebel on you regardless of what you did to stop it"
Bull, sounds more like you sucked at the game because there is plenty of ways to put down Rebels by just building watchtowers and other buildings to improve public order and Generals would only lose loyalty and rebel if you gave them too many titles or grew your empire too large and fast causing them to become ambitious or if you left a weak heir upon your leader's death causing a civil war. It made expanding actually interesting instead of being a boring steamroll.
" the units the rebels would get were way beyond anything they could possibly get like mounted armoured knights and trebuchets"
Another bullshit point, unless you can build it yourself or it was a special event there is nothing showing that random rebels can spawn with high level troops like that. Not like the same does not still happen in your precious Rome 1 with Gladiator uprisings or faction revolts spawning gold chevron units.
"I deleted that game in disgust."
The only disgusting thing I see here is your garbage opinions.
@@rorschach1985ify Preach! I still enjoyed Rome and all the subsequent games up until Attilla, but I vastly prefered the Risk style map over the free movement one. I just don't think it improved the gameplay experience at all. I go so tired of chasing mini stacks all over the place and stumbling through fog of war to locate a city. Maybe I just got lazy lol.
Medieval 1 is my favorite TW to this day. They never managed to recreate the gritty atmosphere that game had, with the possible exception of Attilla. I mean, the soundtrack alone. Chills.
The first Med title was mid at best, Med II was a much better game and one of the best titles CA has released.
@@matthewhutt544 "mid at best"
Shit taste: The comment
For me the letdown started when they decided to scrap city micromanagement and replaced it with the slot system. It was a fairly small decision but pretty telling in what approach future games will take and took one important aspect of the feeling of "empire BUILDING". Then the games steadily got faster paced, more 5-minute-battles in less turns with much lower stakes attached to them.
Naturally, I switched to Paradox games like EU IV that still portrayed the notion of grandeur and if it is a medieval battle I crrave, there is still Bannerlord.
Yeh i have to thank CA for dumbing down so much that they Introduced me to Paradox
CA lost me when Rome 2 came out. Not only was it buggy as hell, but they unneccesarily removed a lot of features from the older games and thus dumbed down the game way too much. As a strategy fan I want some depth and complexity.
In Rome 2 I was now forced to have a General in every army and I could not split armies. In cities I couldn't build everything, but was forced to pick buildings for just a few slots. I used to enjoy making metropolises out of villages! I don't think there's population in Rome 2 either. And there were no family trees nor proper RPG mechanics. The game of agents now sucked, and you couldn't build watch towers or forts. In battle everyone shouted generic British, and there was no proper collision between units, or formations pushing against each other. They just blended into blobs. Which unit would win was entirely determined by stats, instead of taking into account terrain bonuses, morale etc.
As far as I know all the later Total War games use the same engine and game design as Rome 2, and they continued the trend with simplification. That's why I haven't played any of the newer games. For me to be interested, they need to bring back the good parts of the old games, such as Rome 1 and Medieval 2, and they NEED to let armies have proper collision and work in formation (and for the love of God please bring back the projectile looks of Medieval 2).
For me Total War peaked with Rome 1/Medieval 2 and Shogun 2. To this day modders keep making those games as good as they can be.
i dont have too much time in the other total war games, but one thing that really stood out to me was the diplomacy in tw3k, like, getting paid to peace out with an ai faction when your winning and being able to literally just buy/trade your way into owning china was very unique and hella fun for me. my only problem was that it crashed pretty frequently when playing with mods but otherwise a very solid game
This video is really well argued and I completely agree with your takes, apart from my cynicism of Pharaoh.
Worst thing is CA completely broke my trust with Rome 2 and I still don’t trust them anymore. I’ve never liked the engine since Rome 2, it just feels unrealistic, and weak compared to the old games (apart from the musket ones which it was made for). But anyway it’s all good, I’ve got Rome remastered RTR Imperium Surrectum until they release a good historical again! 😅
It's impossible for Pharaoh to be "100% historically accurate" because so little is known about the Bronze Age Collapse, it's going to be another fantasy-history TW.
Throne of Britannia to me is a good game in which I have a good few hundred hours on,it is a real pity that it was abandoned, thankfully molders took care of it (especially the 1066 mod )
I love Thrones of brittania because I feel like it’s a more realistic medieval experience - I don’t like how in the 1212 mod you take three castles and all of a sudden you own half of Germany. So I personally liked having a massive and very minute map.
I've loved all titles, but Thrones of Brittania and although I like this video I think the title is a tad bit dramatic but all that aside your optimism and pragmatic take you don't simply slam everything just because it's new or different and I appreciate that!
I think Three Kingdoms romance mode was the best blend of fantasy and historical since the generals and hero characters are single powerful units but don't have magic have any monsters.
Nah it aint it tries to do both but history people arent happy cause why is there a one man army happening beating my elite guards and then the fantasy people are gonna be like wow this is just like whtw just with out most of the cool shit
I think Three Kingdoms is the best Total war game I’ve played, and I’ve played almost all of them. The Romance feels much like you would expect of its equivalent novel. Record’s feels more like a standard total war game where loose historical elements are more prevalent. Romance does a good job of implementing the larger than life characters that are so prevalent in The Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Why is this one man destroying my elite royal guard? Cause its mutha fucking Lubu!!! Not to mention the game itself has one of the best diplomacy interfaces and mechanics of any total war game.
@@nomad6344Preach Brother!
@@aleksjamnik5360
Play record mod!
I beg to differ. Good on you if you enjoy those, but I prefer a more realistic TW setting. Seeing an officer going full Dynasty Warriors on a whole army does not bring me joy 😕
I rarely comment on videos, but I completely agree with what you said on this. I’ve never liked the fantasy games. I bought warhammer 1, but have barely played it. Same with Thrones of Britannia and Three Kingdoms. I own them but just haven’t cared enough to play them. They just didn’t grip me. The last Total War game that I played properly was Atilla. I’ve since stopped playing and buying Total War games. I occasionally load one up and just think, I can’t be bothered with this and load up a Paradox game instead. It’s just how it’s gone for me.
There are no fantasy elements in Thrones of Britannia. It's really just an expansion for Total War: Attila, like the Britannia campaign was for Medieval II. I'd even go so far as to argue that it's one of the most historically immersive titles CA has ever put out. It has none of the arcadey/semi-mythical mechanics or aesthetics of the more recent 'historical' titles like Three Kingdoms.
I skipped 3 kingdoms entirely because I was still playing TW:WH relentlessly, love that game and I'll never be completely done playing it
It's something about watching chaos dwarfs shoot 3000 peices of fire from artillery or ikit claw nuke and I've started to enjoy co op with freinds
I do not see the problem.
I saw the decision with two different modes as good.
They can do historical for historical mode and fantasy for fantasy mode.
Did dude really just skip over the best Total War ever made Medieval 2
The issue for me is not that we want a good historical OR fantasy total war, we just want a GOOD total war.
One that doesn't launch as a broken mess, one where the units and ranged attacks have impact and feel like they hit hard. Compare an archer unit fireing in three kingdoms to longbowmen in medieval 2. One sounds and looks like wet noodles the otherone feels like balistas going off. Cavalry charges look pathetic in the latest entries...
It says a lot when the physics in rome from 2004 look better than its successor 10 years later.
Also why did we get rid of those pre battle speeches? Why is any general in 3 kingdoms that isnt a historical figure useless?
When i put love and care into one of my generals in rome 1 i could create my very own alexander the great and it felt so much more rewarding for it.
CA, if you're reading this, it doesn't matter how many fancy things you put on top of your food, how many fancy herbs and spices, it doesn't matter how many mechanics you add to your game, if your food is burned/ the foundation of your game is shakey its never gonna be good.
I personally feel like the reason why ppl fall in love with a total war game are immersive battles and a sand-box campaign experience.
So what they in my eyes need to do is actually reduce the numbers of random sidefactors that the ai considers, so it doesn't derp out as much anymore, make tactics count again (a +5 attack against infantry doesn't matter if units have 50 attack)... i loved the fact that you could mass-rout an enemy in rome and medieval 2 if you did it right, or that you could defeat an army of elite samurai with yari ashigaru in shogun 2.
And secondly make the sandbox campaign experience more sandbox again. Don't force me to play one specific way. Let me create my own heros and generals. Let historical figures die in an upsetting way, let me do the thing in medieval 2 where i just send an army to rome and kill and replace the pope cause the bastard excommunicated me.
Let me have fun again and don't tell me how I'm supposed to have fun.
They should make a new TW Empire...really! And I played it since the first TW came out. Loved It. A new Empire and a new Medieval. What I miss, like in Empire is the visible progress in research and progress. I don't like too many statistical advantages, I need to visibly see them.
hold on a minute, lets have a Medieval Total War 3 first.
I've gone from wishing they'd make Medieval 3 and Empire 2 to kind of not wanting them to do that in their current state, in case it turns out like Rome 2. A botched shell of what it should have been. When they've done it they won't do it again. I want to see them make a solid historical TW first. Until then I don't know if I want them to touch Medieval 3/Empire 2.
Empire 3, but this time, it's the entire Globe on the map
I love how Thrones of Britannia was that bad that it even hasn´t been mentioned in this video. And how Attila has been recognized as a good game after the years, I love Attila mate, is my favorite TW ever. I always being very interested in Three Kingdoms, sadly that I don´t have enough time nowadays to really enjoy a game as I did with Rome II, Shogun and Attila.
The people that say dynasty warriors and Total War Three Kingdoms are alike either they never played Dynasty or are biased .Three kingdoms is a historical game if you have a clue about chinese history and as a bonus the game offers you the choice to play full historical , as you can remove the general overpowered mechanic.
The Fantasy mode feels kind of like Dynasty Warriors, but definitely aren't alike aside from that per se. Seeing a general destroy entire units is pleasing, and similar. But definitely not hack & slash.
It still feels like diet Warhammer no matter what you do
No it isn't, even in historical mode a unit of general elephants with less than 10 models can destroy an entire army.
@@vinniciuselion4544 so that would make it similar to Dynast Warriors? A game in which key figures wipe thousands of units. I.e. Lu-Bu especially. Or do you mean something else?
@@vinniciuselion4544 See Rome's first few encounters with Elephants for a historical reference to how effective Elephants were. Perhaps not later on, but they are definitely a shock factor on the field...
three kingdoms is pretty true to the source material the romance of the three kingdoms which has a lot of emphasis on the powerness of legendary characters. Which is what dynasty warriors are also based on when one general can hold on thousands of troops.
I currently play Third Age Total war Divide and Conquer Sub mod for Medievil total war 2. Still greatest total game for me and is all fantasy but is just done so well through free lance amazing people from coders to graphic artists. New games the only things I appreciated was the graphics everything else I disliked. I will say somehow even units in Third age total war the units look absolutely amazing. Just fits the Narrative that game companies cant make good games anymore the biggest example recently was DIablo4 with that forgetting all the good things about D3 and nothing like D2 which is what most people enjoyed and grew up on. Honestly just sad as a gamer to see this and makes me not excited about anything new from game titles I grew up with.
It would be great if the historical players finally got a game they loved, so we can all get back to the battles that matters like screaming about the unit cards.
I very much enjoyed the video. Historical, Fantasy, or mixed, makes absolutely zero difference to me. It's about the game itself. Earlier CA games had depth & complexity that required thinking and decision making by the player. They required your full attention to play & survive. Now, a common description used to describe their games, "dumbed down". They've become simplistic point & click action games that require very little attention or strategy. Both in the campaign & real time battles. My kid's FREE Roblox games are more in depth. Pharoah, sadly looks no different. For some people, that may be what they like. Maybe, that is the direction CA feels will make them more money. For me, sadly, I'm not interested. But, I will continue to look at their future projects in hope of finding that same magic I once found with CA.
Indeed, once IM empire i was hellbent of finding something new and interesting
But realize it was gonna be recruiting whatever is best, battle and just redo same strat for another 200 times
Really shame, cuz they put seemingly good work into creating alot of units, but most of those units are there only to be slaughtered by the player
I did really like Three kingdom tho
6:50
"As balls slapped into the behind like me on a friday evening"
HOW IS NO ONE TALKING ABOUT THAT ONE LMAO!!!!
LMAO YOU EARNED THIS SUB LMAO IM CRYING
Empire Total War was my favorite, yeah it had it's share of bugs and mechanical annoyances - but the setting and scope of the gameworld was awesome. The good old days.
No way you actually believe rome 1 is the most technical or that in looks anywhere near as good as the remaster 💀 bruh nostalgia hits yall hard when talking this franchise
some people unironicaly believe rome 1 and med2 had the most in depth campaigns of the series , im not saying those games are bad (i love them) but come on lol
9:34 you’re doing a wonderful job of articulating why I only play the late total wars to mess around with arrows or muskets. The way infantry collides and interacts just doesn’t work for me like how it does in Rome or Medieval 2
Ditching the infantry combat engine from Rome 1 was the single biggest mistake CA ever made.
The last title I played was Rome 2, which, after the mid life upgrades, got to be quite solid. I would love to see a Medieval 3: Total War.
It's just hard going from war hammer to non-warhammer
Empire has always been my favourite. Still hoping for a sequel
I like the fantasy settings, I like the historical settings, I like the half-way mythical settings. What I don't like are bugs, over-simplistic, poor balancing and tedium. I have recently gone back to a modded MTW2 and my god was it buggy as hell when it came to trying to move your troops around. Trying to just get the troops to do what you told them was a nightmare. Things like diplomats on the map as characters, having to return to specific cities to replenish troops etc, it was all tedious and added nothing to the game.
Ultimately I don't mind what direction CA take, as long as the games are ultimately enjoyable. I don't think TW has died, it's just had some rocky patches. Nearly every franchise with as many games as TW will go through this as they try to keep things interesting. Some new ideas hit, some miss. Everyone was saying Empire and Warhammer would be absolute failures for daring to deviate from the tried and tested and yet both were successful.
The worst thing CA can do is to just keep churning out the same thing over and over again without trying new ideas. On balance, I'd still say the games are good.
Completely agree. I love total war for what it is. Both historical, fantasy, and mixed. But I would love more depths to the games. Like could you imagine Total War battlefields mixed with Crusader Kings campaign style (I know that is WAY too much to ask for but atleast something along those styles).
Also think they should start branching out more in time periods. Maybe even a WW1 or WW2 themed one where the whole world could be the map. (Also a very big order but one can still hope)
Totally disagree, other than buggy troop movements. Medieval 2 had far and above the best campaign system, without the stupid recruiting units in the field, it made sense to have to move an elite unit back to a certain settlement to recruit them, not just auto replenish Bs.
@@ViktoriousDead Unless you used the mercenary system with the Captains......
I've said it for years, the instant that TWW1 dropped, historical TW titles were dead. There was no way CA would EVER go back to history in any serious way. Everything I've heard for TW3K, and Troy, the only options are "fantasy" and "fantasy-light." Thrones was nothing more than a half-assed throwaway that gives a focused part of Age of Charlemagne. The money that CA has been able to rake in for the fantasy titles and be able to use more creative liberties that are permissible in fantasy, but not in history, means that for the history titles aren't something the fans of that aspect will come flocking toward.