Medieval 2: Total War Q&A at Gamespot

[Astromarine]

<strong>[ Game -> Interview ]</strong>

<p>Gamespot posted a <a href="http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/medieval2totalwar/news.html?sid=6144512" target="_self" title="Q&A">Question and Answer session</a> with CA's Bob Smith regarding the new Cash Grab: Total War game. Oops, I meant Medieval 2. My bad. Here's a quote:</p><p> </p><blockquote><p>
<strong>GameSpot:</strong> The big question on everyone's minds is: Why go back
and revisit Medieval: Total War so soon? It's obviously a very popular
game, but there was a lot of speculation that Creative Assembly might
extend the series into the Napoleonic era or some other time period in
history that we haven't seen covered before. Why go back to medieval
Europe rather than explore a new time period?
</p><p>
<strong>Bob Smith:</strong> There were several factors behind our decision to
revisit Medieval. First and foremost, the medieval period is just so
great for a Total War game; it is in many ways the perfect setting. It
has a wide range of unit types, technological progress, constant
warfare, treachery, intrigue, and the clash of civilizations. Plus, of
course, the setting proved very popular with Total War fans.
</p><p>The other big factor concerned our technology. In the four
years since the launch of the original Medieval, our technology has
improved hugely, and on the battle side, we can now really capture the
color and pageantry of the medieval period and do it justice.
</p></blockquote><p> </p><p>I just can't get excited for this. I know it's not a common opinion, but fuck it. It just seems lazy from one end to the other. The only honest-to-God new feature seems to be that America thing, and even that doesn't look that special. Make a firearm-era game next and I'll go back to being CA's bitch. But I think I'll give a pass on this one.
</p><p>Spotted @ <a href="http://www.gamespot.com">Gamespot</a></p>

 

[Jason]

"Cash Grab: Total War game. Oops, I meant Medieval 2. My bad."

Jokes aren't your strong spot.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

A colonization-era Total War game would be much better methinks. They could add managing colonies and such as a bulletpoint INNOVATION and we'd get our guns and new setting.

 

[Astromarine]

"Cash Grab: Total War game. Oops, I meant Medieval 2. My bad."

Jokes aren't your strong spot.

Which makes me happy my function is posting news and content, not jokes.

Was it cheap and easy? Yeah, it was. Could I do better? Probably, on a good day and for a topic I gave a shit about. I really do feel "meh" about this game, though, and this becomes apparent when I write about it.

 

[Jason]

You have to decide once and for all if what you want is to run a strategy game fansite or a vehicle for in-jokes and SHOWING TEH MAN!!!1 Realize which of these goals is more important to you, and work towards it.

 

[Astromarine]

ooo, burn

But this is different. This is me.

 

[Levski 1912]

Yeah, why go back to medieval times, when there's so much more in European history alone? The great 17-18 century wars, Napoleonic times, late 1800s/early 1900s (before tanks)- the list goes on and on.

 

[Ryuken]

Interview's a bit old already but one thing stood out imo:

GS: Naval combat was abstracted very heavily in Medieval and Rome, to the point where the computer automatically generated battle results whenever hostile fleets clashed. Will we see that same level of abstraction in Medieval 2, or will naval combat be fleshed out a bit more?

BS: Creating full-scale 3D naval battles is a massive task; creating them to the standard we'd want to achieve for a Total War game is an even bigger one. Consequently, we decided not to embark on such a task this time around. Naval combat will be handled similarly to the system employed in Rome but polished and tweaked.


Lazy indeed, after three Total War games with each an expansion they still don't know what to do with ships.

 

[LlamaGod]

They've already done Europe twice and the only time they did something different was their first and most minor game, Shogun.

I'd like a game in Middle Eastern regions or something.

MTW2 is just completely lame and I think even less of Creative Assembly. Just a bunch of silly moneywhores now.

 

[kingcomrade]

It's because Europeans kick ass at war. Or at least they used to. Unless you want to play Machete: Total War where you run around attacking defenseless villages in Africa. Not exactly strategically challenging.

I'd like to play a Total War game set in the Colonial Age. With ships. The TW style of engine seems perfectly built for lines of musketeers blowing each other apart, and artillery and such. Hey, a WW1 Total War game would also kick ass. Swordsmen and cavalry are gay, I want riflemen.

 

[Jason]

If you want riflemen blowing eachother apart, check out the new Take Command: 2nd Manassas.

It's due out in April.
http://www.madminutegames.com/gallery.htm

There's also a trailer that's worth watching.

 

[LlamaGod]

Madminute is pretty good, we should try to get an interview with them.

I liked their Civil War: Bull Run game alot. It kicked ass.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Yeah, why don't you do an interview this time ffs

 

[Jason]

The crappy thing is that Bull Run is no longer for sale. I've looked around. They should just sell it as a digital download for $20 or $30. There's enough of a niche audience for that sort of thing to keep the money trickling in for a while.

And yeah, go for an interview.

 

[LlamaGod]

Yeah, why don't you do an interview this time ffs

I GOTS NO QUESTIONS, SIRRAH

 

[Naked_Lunch]

just ask them about what it's like developing wargames, how is the audience and their reactions, why do you make the games you do et cetera.

I'd do an interview, but I'm doing one right now with the UFO: Extraterrestials guys and you gotta start pulling your weight, son

 

[Jason]

I just noticed this on the MadMinute site about why you can't buy Bull Run anymore.

"This game is no longer being produced. This game was released under a budget ware logo and needed to sell a lot of copies to remain on store shelves. It did not. So AV is no longer producing it to our knowledge. We could sell it ourselves but would have to pay them a royalty. We just can't agree to the principal of that. We can rewrite the game, but we want to move on.

If you just played our demo and want to play our games, the wait is very short. I expect a demo for our next game "Take Command - 2nd Manassas" will be available in March. The game will be released in April. This game is much better than our first, it will be worth the wait. So please don't make some guy on ebay rich in order to get a copy of CWBR. You only have to wait a couple of months and you'll have a much better game.

On another note. In order to make sure that we do not end up in this situation again we have enlisted the help of Slitherine Software to aid us in our business negotiations. Their advice on business management and in assisting us to bring our Title to a wider international market has proven invaluable."

The AV they're talking about is Activision Value, which is just a subdivision of Activision run by the bronze medal winners of the last Special Olympics.

After TC2M is finished, MM is considering rewriting Bull Run as part of an expansion pack. Strange idea.

 

[LlamaGod]

Activision Value is fucking stupid

 

[S4ur0n27]

It has a wide range of unit types, technological progress, constant warfare, treachery, intrigue, and the clash of civilizations.

The whole humanity offers you that, damn it! Cultures are diversified enough to offer them other settings and they should use them! A game taking place in the middle of Asia anywhere between 500BC to 1700AC would be great, as well as a Napoleonic era game.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

Scary as it is, I agree with Susan. They're just doing a retread of Medieval simply because it would take less work than to do a whole new setting. They're only adding what, popes and part of North America along with the requisite new units, right? It's much easier to do that rather than have to do all new art and setups for say, Colonial Era and such.

 

[VasikkA]

Next Total War will be set in the Console Wars part 2.

 

[Jason]

I'm going to play as a Gizmondo.


edit:
"They're just doing a retread of Medieval simply because it would take less work than to do a whole new setting."

In that PC Gamer article, they said that they're working on a conservative game and a "revolutionary" game at the same time. This is supposed to be the conservative one.

 

[Naked_Lunch]

The "revolutionary" one is probably going to be a console game or something, like Spartan Total Warrior except they'll add some cheesed "strategy" portion (Kinda like Dynasty Warriors 4: Empires, though that was a cool game) and call it *Civilization/Culture/Continent* Total Warfare.

 

[S4ur0n27]

The revolutionary one will be the expansion; it will have naval battles.

 

[kingcomrade]

Spartan Total War<tm>, where you live in the action! Following in the footsteps of Dynasty Warriors, you get to blah blah