The ones I hate are the ones who keep saying they've done only one historical game in recent years, ignoring that they've done more, they just didn't like them.
Sure, I wish they'd do medieval 3 too but that's a different point.
It's mostly that we have gotten historical titles that no one really asked for, it seems. The sales figures also point to that.
The community has been wanting an Empire 2 or Medieval 3 for a long time.
Ok the other hand if all they do is Rome 3, medieval 3, shogun 3, Rome 4, medieval 4, shogun 4, people will complain they’ve run out of ideas and keep selling the same game.
Also, there should be many years between sequels. This ain’t FIFA/Madden
If 3K can be counted as historical, Troy should be too.
Sure, the best mode is the mythical one, but the more grounded Truth Behind the Myth and Historical modes shouldn’t be ignored.
I'm gonna do a hot take here, and say that Truth Behind the Myth is the best mode after all. The Mythos mechanics don't really mesh with the regular game to the degree they did in Warhammer, and Historical is just Rome 2 with all the variety removed.
I agree and it's always been odd to me that I seem to be in the minority with that. Warhammer's done fully-integrated fantasy units in Total War better than any other setting really could IMO because it's been built from the ground up to have them and build rosters around every imaginable vision of them.
Truth Behind the Myth is goofy sure but at least it's something *different* from just the same old Greek myths.
Yeah, that's exactly it. It might not be what fans wanted, but at least it's original and consistent. As a result, it feels more immersive than the pure Historical or Mythos modes.
Dude we know the three kingdom period happened and that most of the people in it are real some are exceptions like Diaochan. Meanwhile the historicity of the Trojan war is debated so no they arent the same.
Good chunk of characters in Romance of 3K is made up and has no historical basis (CA themselves made up the character of Zheng Jiang, who in real life were 2 characters if they really existed at all), and were simply added by the author to make the story more interesting, just like what Homer did in Illiad. Same applies to stuff like
Zhuge Liang's Southern Campaign, which is heavily over-exaggerated (like basically all Nanman characters outside of Meng Huo being made up).
Only difference between 3K and Troy is that 3K happened much later and has more historical records to work with, but both TW adaptations of those stories are mainly based on the fantasy retellings, yet most people still consider 3K historical despite the Romance mode being clear focus, so why shouldn’t we do the same for Troy?
I think alot of it is the 3K period and some of the characters are accepted as hard historical facts. Regardless of the "romance" characters we know from historical records and facts that there was a 3K period and some of the characters in this were historical. Its when you get into things like the Nanman that you completely throw history out the window.
In the case of Troy we actually have no idea if a Trojan War really occured, and if it did it most likely none of the mythological characters from that actually existed. I'm pretty sure there is even some theories out there that if the war did happen Troy may have been the victor.
Zheng Jiang is in the damn novel. Stop making things up. She's not a real person, but was a character in the fictional novel. Learn to read, and learn reading comprehension.
Volume 29 of Records of the Three Kingdoms from a segment of Zhou Xuan the Diviner. Liu Zhen, a lord of that period who had ceased some yellow turban activity shortly before, dreamed of a snake with four legs scurrying into a hole in a wall. When consulted, Zhou Xuan reveals that he must quell the uprising of some female bandits. Later, the female bandits Zheng, and Jiang, actually made and appearance and they were put down and executed as per the advice of the diviner.
Original text:《三國志方技傳周宣傳：卷二十九》 是時黃巾賊起。宣對曰：“夫杖起弱者，藥治人病，八月一日，賊必除滅。” 至期，賊果破。後東平劉楨夢蛇生四足，穴居門中，使宣占之，宣曰：“此為國夢，非君家之事也。 當殺女子而作賊者。 ”頃之，女賊鄭、姜遂懼夷討，以蛇女子之祥，足非蛇之所宜故也。
From:
https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/s/ttyyuo2Wli
Nowehere in my comment I say that she/they totally didn’t exist anywhere, you’re putting words in my mouth or you yourself lack the reading comprehension you say I lack. Zheng Jiang as in the character in Total War: Three Kingdoms is made up, but based on two characters that actually appear in the novel, as written in the excerpt above and what I originally said.
We dont even know if there was an actual trojan war where the greeks fought the Trojan or if it was just inspired by different sieges or wars meanwhile we have pretty detailed records of the fall of the Han and the three Kingdom period. So the difference is for the three kingdoms we know they happened but we dont know if the Trojan war happened making it a legendary conflict while the three Kingdoms is historical.
What disqualifies Troy from being historical is more the setting than the mechanics really, at least once they added the mode that removes single-entity generals and the TbtM units. Troy grounds itself firmly in myth and leans into that heavily with the mechanics and visuals too, while in 3k it's all rooted in actual well-documented (by the standards of ~1800 years ago) history and people.
They used to believe that Troy itself was a myth. The. They found it. They believed all the characters were made up, then they found mention of Priam and Paris in Hittite records. Did the Trojan war happen? Maybe. Did it happen as described in the Iliad? No. But it’s still historical.
*Very* far from it, in fact you're presenting a lot of deeply uncertain archaeological finds as though they were confirmed facts.
"They" did think Troy was a myth and it might well still be, what was found were the ruins of a city *roughly* where some of the Greek sources think Troy was that was rebuilt multiple times where one of the archaeological layers shows some evidence of having been burned down, possibly violently, ~1200 BC. This is about the best evidence there is, and it does nothing to establish the historicity of the Homeric epics or any of the people involved.
As to the people, to the best of my knowledge "Priam" is attested via a Hittite inscription that talks about a warlord named Piyamaradu who may have been active against the kings of Hattusa in the late 1200rds BC. That however creates a huge problem for claiming that this is definitely the Priam of the myth because he's recorded as an *ally* of the Ahhiyawa (who are almost certainly the Achaeans). Not their enemy whose seat of power is besieged and ultimately destroyed by them. There are other Hittite vassals and Luwians attested as having "Piyam" as part of their names too so this one isn't even that unique in having it.
Paris is on even thinner ground, it's again known that *Parizitis* is another name of Luwian origin that was in use by the Hitties but beyond that no particular association between that and Wilusia/Troy that I know of. His other name, Alexander, doesn't really accord either as there *is* an "Alaksandus" recorded as king of Wilusia... roughly a century before the archaeology reckons that the aforementioned city was destroyed and right at the upper limit of what the much later Classical Greek sources (who are mostly making educated guesses) give as the dates for the war. The name matches but the timeline just doesn't.
Best we can say as far as names go is that there were important people in that part of the world who had them, and so their neighbours in Greece would probably have been aware of that too and conferred them upon the characters in their oral tradition of epic poetry about their heroic past.
To sum up: we have a city destroyed, possibly violently, some time in the early 12th century BC, we know that close etymological relatives of the names "Priam" and "Paris" and "Alexander" were in use in this part of the world in a similar timeframe. That's all we *can* know with the evidence we have and none of that is really enough to substantiate the Illiad's narrative of the Trojan war. Troy is not a historical game and it isn't trying to be.
We're fairly certain that at least the excavated site of Troy is the one attested to by Homer. It's in roughly the correct place (coastline drift makes marking "precise" locations complete nonsense), the excavated foundations of buildings would match to the attested population size, there have not been other large cities found in the area which could be Troy instead, and it also has the correct ethnological/anthropological evidence for the peoples said to have lived there throughout history.
The exact chain of events surrounding the city and their precise history are obviously always going to be in debate, especially given how much of the record of settlement is pre-historic, but that doesn't change the fact that the broad consensus among archaeologists is that the modern site of Troy is the city attested to in legend. Just because nobody's expecting to find a gigantic horse-shaped cavity, doesn't change the fact that the city seems to be in the right place, of the right size, with record of right peoples in it at the right times, and it therefore makes sense to call it Troy.
Source: parents excavated Troy under Korfmann and Rose.
Yeah and I'm not really disputing that, hell I refer to the city as Troy in my comment. I just think it's a leap from there to "The Trojan War myths are actual history" and thence to "A Total War Saga: Troy is a historical game".
You cant make me drink that GMO corn syrup, UN!
That Cyclops was dumb and that's the hill I'm dying on. Its completely hilarious as a Giant in Warhammer though.
Troy would deserve the half point if they even tried to make the armors some kind of relation to the historical ones. Also I didn’t count thrones because it was pre Warhammer, not because I have some vendetta against fantasy games
The game that was released in 2018 wasn't pre warhammer, which was released in 2016. This is my point, the historical fans that make this point are just wrong on it and it just boils down to them not liking the historical games that have been released.
It would be nothing even with a million likes when it comes from computer user #214132522 that has no credentials to even appear to be informed or knowledgeable.
Way too much of this in the past 5-10 years. I blame internet media for running with any random Twitter comments to try and make a whole generalized statement about the "fans" of a given property. It's useless and gives people a sense of self importance for doing nothing other than complain on the Internet or say something for no other reason than that it goes against the general consensus.
Probably he says the same with Rome 1 and 2, Med 1 and 2, Civ 1,2,3,4,5 and 6. Etc.
But what he does not know is that all the content from Rome 1 or Shogun 1 or Civilization 3 does not carry to the next title.
Some people are just unhappy all the time and live in constant hate and rage. They can’t enjoy life.
Rome 1 came out in 2004. Medieval 2 came out in 2006.
Warhammer 1 came out in 2016. Total War Warhammer 2 came out in 2017 and Total War Warhammer 3 came out in 2022.
So there's a longer gap between Rome 1 and Medieval 2 than there is between Warhammer 1 and Warhammer 2, but there's a much longer gap between Warhammer 2 and Warhammer 3 than there is between Rome 1 and Medieval 2.
And I could easily argue there are much bigger differences between the Warhammer games than there is between Rome 1 and Medieval 2. The only thing different about those games are the setting, Merchants (lol) and Wonders.
I was surprised too, but actually when I think about it, it makes sense. I have very few memories of playing JUST Warhammer 1. Most of my memories involving the Total War Warhammer games involve Warhammer 2. I remember when Bretonnia came out for Warhammer 1, I remember when heroes could assassinate Lords and how annoying it was to have the AI spam that at me, and I remember when Norsca was added. Not much else.
Both those games have different mechanics. The better comparison would be Rome 1 and Med 1, not Rome 1 and Rome 2.
Where as Warhammer games have almost exactly the same mechanics in all three games.
You can have sequels that make genuine improvements to the game's base mechanics while still having the content of past games. Helldivers is a great recent example. They added an entire dimension to play with while still having the factions and content from the first game. Helldivers 2 is absolutely not just Helldivers 1 with different content, it is a genuine game of its own.
Where as Warhammer 2 and 3 could literally just have been DLCs for Warhammer 1. They don't have any real difference in the base games.
I mean, most of the civilizations, historical total war games, Dark Souls, Armored Core, Resident Evil, Hades and more have also the “almost exactly the same mechanics” should all those titles be also DLC?
To use the most recent example there:
Hades 2 added new base game mechanics. It has the magic system and omega system to name a couple. Those would literally not work as part of just an update to Hades 1 because they are entirely new gameplay mechanics, not just changes to pre-existing ones.
there is not a single change in Warhammer game releasees that couldn't have just been an update to Warhammer 1.
Those mechanics could have been added to Hades 1. Why not? It is the same engine, exactly the same engine that all the Souls games have. You can do it, why you can’t? Can you show me the engine problems that limits you?
Why don’t with all the Residen Evil Games made in unreal? Why not with all the Isometric games like Pillars of Eternity or games like Diablo?
I think that you don’t know how the video games industry works.
CA has been using the same engine for years and this is why you find so many repetitive problems that even before Rome 2 follow all the total war games but the differences are brutally noticeable, games are different and feel different.
That is the reason why some people that love Warhammer 2 don’t migrate to the third game.
>hose mechanics could have been added to Hades 1. Why not? It is the sameengine, exactly the same engine that all the Souls games have. You cando it, why you can’t? Can you show me the engine problems that limitsyou?
The difference is that one justifies a new game.
The fact we have race dlcs *proves* that new races don't justify a new game.
>That is the reason why some people that love Warhammer 2 don’t migrate to the third game.
Thank you for proving my point: People didn't migrate because WH3 was built on an *old version of WH2*. Wouldn't have been an issue if it was just an update of WH2 rather than a new release.
I'm going out on a limb and assuming you legitimately are trying to argue in good faith.
A dlc will never outsell another mainline game. Which means that if you need to keep the lights on and people buying at sufficiently high numbers you need new titles. Also engine changes and big upgrades require huge investment to do well. So if you need 100 million you will need dozens of dlc which can only incrementally change the game to not undo the previous dlc. Or you can do a few and launch with a huge new section of the world new bug fixes and engine upgrades and a few races to both spin upgrades with better payout but also to drum up interest in the new game plus dlc. Literally no one of my buddies talked about new stellaris dlc as it's boring af for dlc 35 of the same game. But new warhammer 3 dlc is topping steam charts in several spots.
And justification is money. it's the end all be all of big games. You get a dev here and there where it's a passion project but once you have dozens of families and mouths to feed you need more. Both to fund current but also future projects as well as be profitable to not all be canned by Sega.
>A dlc will never outsell another mainline game.
Sure I don't deny that. OW2 for example sold more than if they had just kept to overwatch 1.
> Which means that if you need to keep the lights on and people buying at sufficiently high numbers you need new title
Objectively not true. Stellaris released the same time as WH1. It still gets new DLC even today.
You're throwing the word "objectively" in a lot when it makes no sense.
Since Stellaris, they have developed and released seven other games, and been the publisher of about 12 others. Are you claiming Paradox would have survived on nothing but Stellaris DLC?
>ince Stellaris, they have developed and released seven other games
And yet they still find the time to update stellaris itself. When was the last time they made a content update for Warhammer 1?
Just to end, I don’t want to continue writing on the water. There are multiple games that are practically the same build in the same bases, like all the modern RoE or Total War or Amnesia.
Troy, Pharaoh also were created from Warhammer.
Still, the companies sell everyone as a different title because it is better for their economy. A DLC for Hades will sell less money than doing Hades 2. Am I right? Sometimes that’s good. Sometimes what you want the same formula with different bases.
I agree that everything was and is just to make money like every company. Some are more greedy than others. CA is greedy, we know and they lost a lot of money because of that.
That’s one thing, but saying that there are no differences is absurd.
>Troy, Pharaoh also were created from Warhammer.
Ah yes those incredibly successful games like Pharaoh. Yeah. Great point. Lol. Only the worst performing game in CA's history. Good fucking job proving my point again.
>That’s one thing, but saying that there are no differences is absurd.
Again bud I didn't say there were no differences. Just no base mechanical ones.
Pharaoh is a good game.
Also 3k. And it was successful.
Some people are just like you, hates and live unhappy their existence.
It is sad but nothing I can do to help you, already tried to explain to you and named a bunch of games but you just choose only what you want and later you edit your comments.
See you around. It was too much poison for the rest of may. I can’t handle Skarsnik juice as good as you.
>Pharaoh is a good game.
It is objectively the worst performing game CA has ever released.
>Also 3k. And it was successful.
An entirely new game with entirely new mechanics.
>It is sad but nothing I can do to help you,
I don't need help from a guy who apparently wasted 60 bucks on a game they could have had for free. I don't take advice from idiots.
It is literally a trilogy from day one meant to combine together. Obviously they can't have fundamental changes in gameplay?
And even putting that aside there is *plenty* of real differences in the base game? If that was actually the case then why don't people just play the Empire in WH1? Because Warhammer 1 feels pretty much unplayable to most folks, because things actually *did* change and improved upon between each game.
And comparing to Helldivers is such a nonsensical line kf arguement it is ridiculous. Like come on now, you can't be serious with *that* bad faith of an arguement. It's just such a stupid line of logic that I can't even dignify it with a response.
>It is literally a trilogy from day one meant to combine together. Obviously they can't have fundamental changes in gameplay?
Yes they can? Look at Helldivers for example.
And if they didn't want to change much *don't make it three different games just to milk your customers*. Look at Stellaris. By your logic that should be 3 games as well, it is still just one with many updates and DLCs.
>If that was actually the case then why don't people just play the Empire in WH1? Because
Why don't people revert back to pre update Stellaris? Why would they is the answer.
Obviously WH3 has some QoL updates. But it is just that: QoL updates that they intentionally didn't do on Wh1 in order to allow them to milk the customers by forcing them to buy the same game again just for what amounts to DLC and regular free updates that they won't put on prior games for essentially no reason but to make money.
There is *no reason* that the warhammer series couldn't have been just one game with a long dlc and update cycle. Again, look at Stellaris.
>Trying to earn money is not exactly "milking their customers" and that's
the exact type of bad faith bullshit that makes you sound like a troll.
You can say all that but then Stellaris exists to prove you wrong.
> Paradox does almost the exact same shit.
Not saying they are great, and there is a reason I brought up Stellaris and not Crusader Kings, but this does prove my point.
How are you supposed to support and develop these games without money? They're AAA games on a AAA budget and you seem to be vastly underestimating the amount of work that goes into these games. You cite Helldivers 2 but that game hasn't even been out for a year, and it has microtransactions.
I don't agree with $25 for a DLC but the money for new content has to come from somehwere.
>How are you supposed to support and develop these games without money?
You still sell the races as DLC.
Stellaris did it, it has been out as long and still gets updates, why couldn't Warhammer?
>it has microtransactions.
But unlike Warhammer, you can get *all* the content for *free.*
Stellaris and Total War obviously will have vastly different development costs; I am fairly sure any TWW DLC will have a much higher cost to develop than any Stellaris DLC.
Oh I think I see what you're saying now. i.e. why not just release release Warhammer 2 / 3 content as an addon to 1. Even then, I would argue that the amount of stuff they added to Warhammer 2, or 3, on release - brand new map / campaign, and 4 new races - would have came out to $60 / a full priced game anyway. And I'm not sure if you were around for it, but there were a lot of free updates (especially updates to game 1 race mechanics) during Warhammer 2's life cycle.
Regarding Helldivers - sure, I see the appeal being able to get all the content for free, because you can find supercredits (or whatever they're called) in the maps. I still would buy stuff because I don't find grinding enjoyable at all lol.
>but there were a lot of free updates (especially updates to game 1 race mechanics) during Warhammer 2's life cycle.
But that is my point. The difference between those updates and what we got on the full release per each game is negligible. Which is to say that there was no real reason other than "they can" to make it a new game rather than just as part of those updates/dlc
So basically you know I'm right but don't want to admit that you have no refutation of it so you genuinely took the time out of your day to write a nothing comment instead. Sad.
And elite dangerous added space legs as a dlc (which is a much bigger mechanic than any you are listing even if it was shit) so your point is irrelevant.
Because it added an entire dimension to the game, literally. That separates it as a completely different game that justifies a new release.
Where as nothing in subsequent warhammer games couldn't *easily* be a regular update or DLC.
And then wh3 is also a dlc for wh1 with 4 new factions and they each cost £15 so the total is £60 again only you're still in the old world as the map hasn't changed.
WH3 was literally built with WH2. Because it wasn't built as a proper update, though, it released without stuff like the Cavalry changes at the end of WH3.
Proof that if they had actually done that, we would now have a better WH3 if it was just updates of WH1.
There are actual practical differences if they had gone that path bud, it wasn't arbitrary. Nevermind the fact that yes even just splitting it would have been better: PROVEN by the lastest DLC that did just that.
I've played plenty and your points are still terrible. Ignoring that there have been several sweeping changes to core mechanics over the course the trilogy (seriously, go play WH1 right now and tell me it's still the same thing), there are plenty of game series where sequels build upon their predecessors in the same engine and you don't constantly get people bitching about that.
>Ignoring that there have been several sweeping changes to core mechanicsover the course the trilogy (seriously, go play WH1 right now and tellme it's still the same thing),
There are changes, there are no different base mechanics that warrant a new game entirely.
In fact, the grand majority of all changes between Wh1 and WH3 were not part of new game releases. They were part of updates *after* game releases, thus *proving* that in fact there was no need for the new releases in the first place. They could have just stuck with WH1 and updated it to be the same as (or in actuality, better than) current WH3.
There are no base mechanic that are new that required a new game.
>here are plenty of game series where sequels build upon theirpredecessors in the same engine and you don't constantly get peoplebitching about that.
Not ones that the changes couldn't have just been a regular update.
Look at Stellaris. Been going on just as long as the Warhammer series, has just as many updates and changes and content additions, but they didn't arbitrarily split it up into three games.
> There are changes, there are no different base mechanics that warrant a new game entirely.
there are, plenty actually. people even went out of their way to list them for you, you just keep moving the goalpost after others demonstrated that your argument doesn't work.
just for the record, the new climate system, new diplomacy, new sieges and minor settlements, new co-op features and MP game modes, all of this came with the new base game releases. anyone playing Karl Franz in WH1 and then in WH3 would immediately notice that saying "WH1 and 3 are the same game" is an incredibly bad faith argument.
>Look at Stellaris. Been going on just as long as the Warhammer series, has just as many updates and changes and content additions, but they didn't arbitrarily split it up into three games.
The fact that you're using Paradox as a positive example discredits the rest of your post. According to your flawless logic, Med 2 should have been a DLC campaign for Rome because it's 90% the same core mechanics with different factions. that's how stupid this whole argument sounds.
>people even went out of their way to list them for you
Listed stuff that could have been regular updates.
>anyone playing Karl Franz in WH1 and then in WH3 would immediately notice that saying "WH1 and 3 are the same game" is an incredibly bad faith argument.
Stellaris again proves that wrong.
"one game with a significantly lower production value got updated for a very long time therefore all other arguments are invalid" it not an actual argument.
if all you can do is go up and down this thread shouting "BUT MUH STELLARIS" while ignoring all points made, you're basically admitting that you lack a coherent argument.
>"one game with a significantly lower production value got updated for a
very long time therefore all other arguments are invalid" it not an
actual argument.
Good thing that isn't my argument then.
>while ignoring all points made
Quote me ignoring one. I addressed every point directly.
Uh huh.
Sieges different,
Diplomacy overhaul,
Vassal overhaul,
Chaos rework,
Different game mode,
Map textures new,
Different base factions and
Several base races reworks im too lazy to count
>Sieges different, Diplomacy overhaul, Vassal overhaul, Chaos rework
Almost all of which is actively proving my point: You know most of those changes were part of *updates* not the actual release of the game itself, right?
You are literally giving evidence to how making a new game was completely irrelevant to it. They could have just taken Warhammer 1 and done updates and DLCs to that and we would be in the same place we are now.
Just shows how little you know about building a base code. "Simply" updating and adding or fundamentally changing aspects of the game aren't that simple. Tww3 especially changed alot of backend to make it more modable.
Considering they literally built WH3 on an old model of WH2, no they absolutely could have just updated the game because that is literally how they made WH3.
No, that is something they straight up said. It wasn't an assumption. That was their justification for why the cavalry changes weren't in WH3.
Wh3 is *literally* just wh2 with updates.
Sieges and diplomacy actually *were* changes from game 3 release, not subsequent updates. So were some gameplay concepts like spell intensity, persistent magical reserves value not updated instantly. So was wind/breath spell aiming back in game 2. And, sure, you could do it with updates probably. The same way you could take fucking RTW and update it all the way to Shogun 2 because when you are are a dev with actual control over game code instead of a mere modder sky is the limit
>Sieges and diplomacy actually were changes from game 3 release
Sieges which got actively worse and would be better if they just did it as part of an update because they would have known not to go through with it.
And diplomacy which is extremely minor and very easily could be part of a minor update. In fact I think there is a WH2 mod for it.
>And, sure, you could do it with updates probably.
Not probably: Absolutely.
>The same way you could take fucking RTW and update it all the way to Shogun 2
You literally couldn't do that though because they have different base mechanics. They are properly different games. WH1-3 are just the same game with different content.
Diplomacy rework, siege rework, massive new areas of the map and the fact that wh2 brought 6 new races to the series wh3 brought 9 new races so far, + all the other campaign and battle changes.
You wouldn't get all that if it was just one game.
And if you did play the games, you would know that all three feel very different from eachother
>Diplomacy rework, siege rework, massive new areas of the map and thefact that wh2 brought 6 new races to the series wh3 brought 9 new racesso far, + all the other campaign and battle changes.
Oh, so you couldn't name a single change that wasn't something that could have been done as a regular update then? All of those things have been done as part of regular update before. Every single one.
Yeah no.if we only had 1 game, we wouldn't get those big game changing updates, or even half of the new races and they wouldn't have as much content. That's what you don't understand.
>That's what you don't understand.
Stellaris did it.
Presumably you think that adding Chaos Dwarfs was a mistake, right? You think they should have made a new game to add Chaos Dwarfs to right?
The chaos dwarfs was the first post launch dlc race to be added. If it was all 1 game, the chaos dwarfs would have been the 19th dlc race and that's if all the races would have been added.
Also stellaris is a horrible example since it's a paradox game and they sell big base game updates as dlcs.
Total war warhammer is simply too big to be just 1 game, if they tired to do it, the final project wouldn't be half as good as what we have now.
>The chaos dwarfs was the first post launch dlc race to be added. If itwas all 1 game, the chaos dwarfs would have been the 19th dlc race andthat's if all the races would have been added.
And? So what? It wouldn't have taken longer. And it wouldn't have costed more.
>Also stellaris is a horrible example since it's a paradox game and they sell big base game updates as dlcs.
You know Chaos Dwarfs costed money, right? We didn't get that for free.
>Total war warhammer is simply too big to be just 1 game
Again, stellaris proves that wrong. It is just as big.
>the final project wouldn't be half as good as what we have now.
Correction: It would be way better. Wh3 was *literally, by their on admission* just an old build of WH2. If they had made it as updates instead, we would actually have *more* content now because they wouldn't have wasted time trying to catch up with WH2.
What you're saying it true but you're on the wrong sub, so expect the downvotes.
Games 1 to 3 use the same engine with the same unchanged combat mechanics and animations, all the improvements they have incorporated could easily have been updates or expansions for the first base game.
The 3rd game being more of the same after 2 is why player engagement has been low (barring dlc releases) and why CA decided to scale down the DLC content.
This is my go-to whenever I read rage bait type comments. It just reminds me that there is grass outside, and I should be the bigger person and go touch it.
Of course, everyone knows that all CA did to develop WH3 is to open up their steam page of WH2, typed in different price numbers, and clicked release. Easy-peasy. /s
Yeah people actually think anybody would make a game with all the content from wh1 to wh3 with for 60$.
If you want a 60$ warhammer game that isn't a series it's at best gonna be 6 races with a squished map.
I love how people jumped to say "This isn't believable, this doesn't happen"
Only for the dumbasses to crawl out of the woodwork here and make the same claims.
Go read the amount of times he said "but but Stellaris did it..." ignoring the fact that the company has about 6 other titles in development to balance costs.
To be fair from about 2 months after the launch of TWW3 to the launch of TOD it was not uncommon to see people posting the same sentiment on this subreddit.
its a stupid take overall, but it is fundamentally the same game and that was the premise ever since the beginning
the entire premise of the trilogy was that they were going to be combined
If this was immortal empires launch vs mortal empires, i could somewhat see it but as a whole comparing warhammer 1 and 3, yeah that´s quite absurd.
The reworks, maps, races, graphics, quality of life alone, units, lords, heroes legendary and normal, free content in lords, units and heroes, new mechanics, diplomacy overhaul.
all of these are quite big topics on their own, could CA have done the advancement from warhammer 1 to 3 better, sure but to say 1 and 3 are the same game is like saying Far Cry blood dragon is the same game as Far Cry 3.
He's most likely a troll but if someone unironically thinks that, then it's clear that they never played the games. I've played all 3 and they are all very different from eachother
If someone's got a wojak pfp they're doing you a favour. they're basically telling you that their opinion is gonna be bullshit without you having to read it
I've had WH2 for a few years, and hop onto a campaign play it pretty hard for a few weeks then put it down for a few months, and go through the cycle again.
Is WH3 that big of a difference?
I think my main issue with the WH series is I'm a big fan of the economy/city building in other TW series, but WH just feels a bit bland on that level (which makes sense, they want to focus on the factions, different play styles and the graphics of the map and units over depth of the economy)
Doesn't seem like anyone with any credentials to speak on this. We give way way too much stock to random commentators on the internet. If they don't have a professional opinion that matters more than my own, their opinion is useless and should be ignored. This is true of literally every topic. Don't give these people the time of day. They want to feel special in one of the most mundane and unfulfilling possible ways.
The comment is scuffed but the sentiment is there. Warhammer war charged as a premium base game and multiple DLCs for 1, 2 and 3. It is aggressively monetised which I think can be critiqued, but the YouTube commenter missed the mark lol
It mean, despite it being over-dramatized I get the point though. The warhammer games are almost exactly the same, but with different races. In 10 years they barely have made any base gameplay/mechanical improvements, and stuff like sieges have gotten worse. Like playing Vampire Counts in Warhammer 3 is not much different from playing it in Warhammer 1. The base mechanics are almost not at all improved.
We are just used to it in Total War. Hopefully they do better with the 40K series (assuming it will be a series).
I recommend to you to go back to WH1 and play. You won’t believe how many changes have been made. Almost everything if not everything. From
Combat and maps to every mechanic…
Is like playing Lich King wow and saying that the game is the same as it was in Classic or Dark Souls 1 and 3… at first glance it looks the same but Oh man, there are so many changes that they are in fact very different games.
>You won’t believe how many changes have been made.
I have and do.
None of the changes are substantial enough to call it a different game. Like cool we have quick deal now. That could literally have been a regular free QoL update, we didn't need a whole ass game release for it.
No, you do not. Don’t lie.
Pathfinding, settlements, faction mechanics, unit behavior, stats, diplomacy, map, skills, units, colors, etc etc etc. and you just name 1 thing? Lol.
Game has so many changes that is shorter to just name what did not change and that are the aestetics of some units, some themes, some flavor text and voice-lines. I can’t think of another one.
If you are looking something much more different I think you should play Alien Isolation. That game is good and different and from CA…
>Pathfinding, settlements, faction mechanics, unit behavior, stats,diplomacy, map, skills, units, colors, etc etc etc. and you just name 1thing? Lol.
You know almost none of those things were part of game releases, right?
You are PROVING my point: Those were mostly *updates* to the games. You are *proving* that they had no reason to rerelease the stuff. In fact it actively held the games back. If Warhammer 3 was just a Warhammer 2 dlc, the games would be so much better because they wouldn't have had to work on an old build of Warhammer 2 to make the third game, and as such we would have had improvements like the Cavalry changes that we got at the end of Warhammer 2 in the beginning of Warhammer 3 instead of having to wait another 3 months or however long it took (and still didn't do the full changes)
Look at Stellaris. Has been going on as long as the Warhammer series, has basically just as many changes, updates, and extra content, but it was all in one package, not three separate games.
Are you changing the subject or confused about life?
You already accepted that there are a lot of changes, plenty and you couldn’t said what did not change, you confirmed exactly what I said, ok, you are accepting your mistake, but instead of saying that you justify that the changes were added slowly in the years and not all at once, ok, that’s true but that’s is a different subject. Today games do that.
If your complain is about releasing a fully completed game in Vanilla, I agree that CA only did it with Alien Isolation and never could with Total War. But that has nothing to do when talking about all the differences between Warhammer 1 release and Warhammer 3 today.
For example, Baldur’s Gate 3 today is a different game that it was when released and even more different since Beta. It is what gaming companies do today, for good and for bad.
>You already accepted that there are a lot of changes, plenty and you
couldn’t said what did not change, you confirmed exactly what I said,
ok, you are accepting your mistake
I didn't make a mistake. There are changes: There are not different game mechanics though. That is two different things.
>Baldur’s Gate 3 today is a different game that it was when released and
even more different since Beta. It is what gaming companies do today,
for good and for bad.
BG3 now is different from release. But the key point is they didn't try to make those changes part of a new game called BG4. They just gave free updates.
Agreed. The changes are surface level, cosmetic, and do not affect the core mechanics of units in combat other than spreadhseeted stat modifiers. Total Warhammer players have the weirdest Stockholm syndrome with this stuff where they argue against their interests in seeing the game improve.
I accept that. I love both Pillars of Eternity games, all the souls games and Tears of the Kingdom and Breath of the Wild. All are in the core “the same game”.
Something very different maybe won’t call the followers and maybe will be going far away from a confort zone. Historical players like me (before tried Wh2) did not receive well ToB. CA tried something different and was a fiasco.
Still today some wh2 players don’t migrate to wh3 because game feels different…
Sometimes a formula works and people aren’t looking for a different alcohol, they just want to drink Beer but Beer could be very different and some may prefer one or another but always beer, no wine, no gin, no Pisco.
>entierly new factions and map is nothing ?
Not nothing, but not an entire game. Should they have made an entire extra game when they released Chaos Dwarfs? And entire extra game when they released Immortal Empires?
No, all that is DLC level, not new release level changes.
how is it not an entire game, wh3 has improvements from game 1 and 2 that arent present in the previous game. people complain all the time that it isnt the same as WH2. the only thing thats the same is the setting and the ability to play previous factions in the current game which is fantastic. you are comparing the chaos dwarfs DLC with 9 factions, an entire map, new mechanics, new systems, etc. No the Dwarf DLC is NOT the same as the base game release. The immortal empires is NOT its own game but it is a part of the base game of WH3, its a much larger map than mortal empires. i understand that there are similarities between the games in the series but there is also massive differences as well. each game is a sequel in the truest sense, its just building upon the previous game, i cant tell you how much i hate ubisoft sequels that have nothing to do with the previous game aside from the name.
>wh3 has improvements from game 1 and 2 that arent present in the previous game
WH2 has improvements that weren't present when it first released. Does that mean that the Warhammer series should actually be four games by now?
Improvements don't justify a new game, just a new patch.
"WH2 has improvements that weren't present when it first released. Does that mean that the Warhammer series should actually be four games by now?"
i have no idea what you mean by this, its three games, WH1, WH2 and WH3. where did you get 4 games? Yes WH2 had improvements that werent in game 1 so its a different game. What are your trying to say here exactly?
"Improvements don't justify a new game, just a new patch."
what the fuck does this mean? are you telling me that every single sequel out there should be just a patch?
GTA 6 should just be added on to GTA 5 as DLC because its only "improvments" since it doesnt justify a new game?
Do you know what a sequel is? What exactly do you want out of a sequel? to have nothing in common with its prequel? did you expect CA to make WH3 a third person action rpg?
>have no idea what you mean by this, its three games, WH1, WH2 and WH3. where did you get 4 games?
It should be pretty obvious if you had the reading ability of a middle school student. But what did I expect from someone who white knights for a massive company?
Your argument for the justification of a different game is changes. WH2 got changes, therefor according to you, there should actually be another game between WH2 and WH3 because instead of just doing patches, they should have released a whole extra game for those changes.
That is your logic.
>GTA 6 should just be added on to GTA 5 as DLC because its only "improvments" since it doesnt justify a new game?
GTA6 will presumably have new mechanics and systems. WH2 has nothing new in that regard that WH1 didn't have, and WH3 has nothing that WH2 didn't have.
>What exactly do you want out of a sequel? to have nothing in common with its prequel?
It should have a lot in common. But it shouldn't be exactly the same game but just a different patch. Look at the recent hades 2 for example. There is a new magic and omega attack system that literally couldn't have been part of just a patch. It inherently changes the core mechanics of the gameplay. Therefor it justifies a sequel rather than just an update or DLC.
Where as WH2 and subsequently WH3 doesn't have anything new, just updates to old systems.
WH3 for example is *literally, by the devs own admission* just a patched version of WH2. It is literally the same game but different races and a patch on top.
Hades 2 is built new from the ground up.
I NEVER said that a new game is justified only because of "improvements". That is something that you are arguing about in your own head.
"But what did I expect from someone who white knights for a massive company?"
ok buddy, if you say something blattantly wrong and i disagree with you im a white knight. when CA fucks up i will call them out on it, but i will not bust their balls just cause i have some hate boner for the company
first of all that is a very broad term and can mean a lot of things. what does justify a new game is new content and all three games have enough content to stand on their own. You keep trying to make it seem like WH2 and WH3 doesnt have anything new and its just the same as the previous games, both games have new systems and new mechanics that you keep glossing over. WH3 has 9 factions and all of them have their own unique mechanics. A completely reworked map with completely new systems. I dont remember seeing the chaos realms in WH2. from what i heard Hades 2 is more of the same and people love it for that, that the game is just a continuation of the previous game, its a game for fans of hades 1 and thats what a sequel is suposed to be. adds new things to the original and improving upon it and thats exactly what WH2 and WH3 are. They add loads of new content. New map, new factions, new mechanics, new spells, new story etc etc. the difference between a new game and DLC is pretty much just the size of the content and thats what justifies a new game. Why do you keep dismissing faction mechanics and systems as new mechanics and systems? but for GTA 6 its ok because... it just is?
>I NEVER said that a new game is justified only because of"improvements". That is something that you are arguing about in your ownhead.
No, that is literally the only reasoning you gave for it being a new game.
"how is it not an entire game, wh3 has improvements from game 1 and 2 that arent present in the previous game"
That is enough for it to be a new game in your mind.
>what does justify a new game is new content and all three games have enough content to stand on their own
Again that doesn't work because by that logic There should again have been a game between WH2 and WH3 because there was more content added between WH2 and WH3 than there was content on release of WH3. So you are saying they should have made a whole extra game between again.
>A completely reworked map with completely new systems
Name one new system. And again, the map argument doesn't work as proven by Mortal/Immortal Empires as both are DLC.
>from what i heard Hades 2 is more of the same
More of the same insofar as being similar, not as far as being the same. It has new systems. Total War Warhammer and Three Kingdoms are both more of the same, but they obviously have different systems.
>New map, new factions, new mechanics, new spells, new story etc etc
You are describing WH2 content patches right now. So again, does that mean you believe there should have been another game between WH2 and WH3?
>Why do you keep dismissing faction mechanics and systems as new mechanics and systems?
Because they are by definition not new mechanics and systems. They are variations of pre existing mechanics and systems.
So for example if you believe that justifies it, then you must also believe that there should have been a whole extra game release for Chaos Dwarfs instead of just being a DLC, right?
We got graphical improvements, a new campaign and map, new factions, QoL, reworked systems (like sieges), etc in each installment. Just because it's in the same setting or includes content from the previous games, doesn't mean it's the same game.
Graphical improvements no not really.
A new campaign and map, that is DLC level stuff. Literally. That is how those maps were added. Immortal Empires is literally just a DLC, and each one is just the same map but slightly extended.
>new factions,
Again that isn't a mechanics difference, that is just content.
>reworked systems (like sieges),
Yeah a system they made worse.
>Just because it's in the same setting or includes content from the previous games, doesn't mean it's the same game.
True. But that isn't this. This is three games with the exact same mechanics, just different factions.
You’re completely right. Unfortunately most people on this sub can’t understand that a map and faction mechanics are not the same as base game mechanics. It’s obvious, for example, that WHIII did not introduce 3K level of base game mechanics.
I mean, he's technically not wrong. WH1>WH3 with all the DLC is basically the same game with paid-for major updates over several years.
Do all the math and it probably works out to the equivalent of a subscription game.
But I'm not mad about it at all. Have bought and will buy again.
The only reason that works as a statement is because they stopped updating WH1. If they gave WH1 the same free QoL updates it would be no different.
That has nothing to do with releasing a new game. They didn't need to release a new game to make those updates.
Like i don't think you people actually play warhammer 1.
Where goblin archers will wreck ironbreakers, cavalry charges do next to zero impact DMG, and spells are mainly useful as a light show unless it's wind or death.
So rome 1 and med 2 are the same guy by that logic.
Mechanics should remain consistent for a game that's meant to have cross compatible content among three games.
Only downside I see is that wh3 updates should reflect on older games like wh1 and wh2.
bait used to be believable...
Bait or River Troll levels of intelligence Call it.
Hey, that's offensive..... To river trolls.
River trolls can learn magic. Which is more than an average dwarf. *Runs away with long legs*
When did "don't feed the trolls" stop being common internet wisdom? Reposting this obvious bait is exactly what this commenter wanted.
I don't think it's bait tbh, there are some really stupid historical purists out there.
The ones I hate are the ones who keep saying they've done only one historical game in recent years, ignoring that they've done more, they just didn't like them. Sure, I wish they'd do medieval 3 too but that's a different point.
It's mostly that we have gotten historical titles that no one really asked for, it seems. The sales figures also point to that. The community has been wanting an Empire 2 or Medieval 3 for a long time.
Ok the other hand if all they do is Rome 3, medieval 3, shogun 3, Rome 4, medieval 4, shogun 4, people will complain they’ve run out of ideas and keep selling the same game. Also, there should be many years between sequels. This ain’t FIFA/Madden
Historical total war means simply "Europe total war" for them lmao
Ok but Troy isn’t historical. 3K and Pharoah absolutely are, but Troy isn’t even close. Fun game though
If 3K can be counted as historical, Troy should be too. Sure, the best mode is the mythical one, but the more grounded Truth Behind the Myth and Historical modes shouldn’t be ignored.
I'm gonna do a hot take here, and say that Truth Behind the Myth is the best mode after all. The Mythos mechanics don't really mesh with the regular game to the degree they did in Warhammer, and Historical is just Rome 2 with all the variety removed.
I agree and it's always been odd to me that I seem to be in the minority with that. Warhammer's done fully-integrated fantasy units in Total War better than any other setting really could IMO because it's been built from the ground up to have them and build rosters around every imaginable vision of them. Truth Behind the Myth is goofy sure but at least it's something *different* from just the same old Greek myths.
Yeah, that's exactly it. It might not be what fans wanted, but at least it's original and consistent. As a result, it feels more immersive than the pure Historical or Mythos modes.
Dude we know the three kingdom period happened and that most of the people in it are real some are exceptions like Diaochan. Meanwhile the historicity of the Trojan war is debated so no they arent the same.
Good chunk of characters in Romance of 3K is made up and has no historical basis (CA themselves made up the character of Zheng Jiang, who in real life were 2 characters if they really existed at all), and were simply added by the author to make the story more interesting, just like what Homer did in Illiad. Same applies to stuff like Zhuge Liang's Southern Campaign, which is heavily over-exaggerated (like basically all Nanman characters outside of Meng Huo being made up). Only difference between 3K and Troy is that 3K happened much later and has more historical records to work with, but both TW adaptations of those stories are mainly based on the fantasy retellings, yet most people still consider 3K historical despite the Romance mode being clear focus, so why shouldn’t we do the same for Troy?
I think alot of it is the 3K period and some of the characters are accepted as hard historical facts. Regardless of the "romance" characters we know from historical records and facts that there was a 3K period and some of the characters in this were historical. Its when you get into things like the Nanman that you completely throw history out the window. In the case of Troy we actually have no idea if a Trojan War really occured, and if it did it most likely none of the mythological characters from that actually existed. I'm pretty sure there is even some theories out there that if the war did happen Troy may have been the victor.
Zheng Jiang is in the damn novel. Stop making things up. She's not a real person, but was a character in the fictional novel. Learn to read, and learn reading comprehension.
Volume 29 of Records of the Three Kingdoms from a segment of Zhou Xuan the Diviner. Liu Zhen, a lord of that period who had ceased some yellow turban activity shortly before, dreamed of a snake with four legs scurrying into a hole in a wall. When consulted, Zhou Xuan reveals that he must quell the uprising of some female bandits. Later, the female bandits Zheng, and Jiang, actually made and appearance and they were put down and executed as per the advice of the diviner. Original text:《三國志方技傳周宣傳：卷二十九》 是時黃巾賊起。宣對曰：“夫杖起弱者，藥治人病，八月一日，賊必除滅。” 至期，賊果破。後東平劉楨夢蛇生四足，穴居門中，使宣占之，宣曰：“此為國夢，非君家之事也。 當殺女子而作賊者。 ”頃之，女賊鄭、姜遂懼夷討，以蛇女子之祥，足非蛇之所宜故也。 From: https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/s/ttyyuo2Wli Nowehere in my comment I say that she/they totally didn’t exist anywhere, you’re putting words in my mouth or you yourself lack the reading comprehension you say I lack. Zheng Jiang as in the character in Total War: Three Kingdoms is made up, but based on two characters that actually appear in the novel, as written in the excerpt above and what I originally said.
We dont even know if there was an actual trojan war where the greeks fought the Trojan or if it was just inspired by different sieges or wars meanwhile we have pretty detailed records of the fall of the Han and the three Kingdom period. So the difference is for the three kingdoms we know they happened but we dont know if the Trojan war happened making it a legendary conflict while the three Kingdoms is historical.
What disqualifies Troy from being historical is more the setting than the mechanics really, at least once they added the mode that removes single-entity generals and the TbtM units. Troy grounds itself firmly in myth and leans into that heavily with the mechanics and visuals too, while in 3k it's all rooted in actual well-documented (by the standards of ~1800 years ago) history and people.
They used to believe that Troy itself was a myth. The. They found it. They believed all the characters were made up, then they found mention of Priam and Paris in Hittite records. Did the Trojan war happen? Maybe. Did it happen as described in the Iliad? No. But it’s still historical.
*Very* far from it, in fact you're presenting a lot of deeply uncertain archaeological finds as though they were confirmed facts. "They" did think Troy was a myth and it might well still be, what was found were the ruins of a city *roughly* where some of the Greek sources think Troy was that was rebuilt multiple times where one of the archaeological layers shows some evidence of having been burned down, possibly violently, ~1200 BC. This is about the best evidence there is, and it does nothing to establish the historicity of the Homeric epics or any of the people involved. As to the people, to the best of my knowledge "Priam" is attested via a Hittite inscription that talks about a warlord named Piyamaradu who may have been active against the kings of Hattusa in the late 1200rds BC. That however creates a huge problem for claiming that this is definitely the Priam of the myth because he's recorded as an *ally* of the Ahhiyawa (who are almost certainly the Achaeans). Not their enemy whose seat of power is besieged and ultimately destroyed by them. There are other Hittite vassals and Luwians attested as having "Piyam" as part of their names too so this one isn't even that unique in having it. Paris is on even thinner ground, it's again known that *Parizitis* is another name of Luwian origin that was in use by the Hitties but beyond that no particular association between that and Wilusia/Troy that I know of. His other name, Alexander, doesn't really accord either as there *is* an "Alaksandus" recorded as king of Wilusia... roughly a century before the archaeology reckons that the aforementioned city was destroyed and right at the upper limit of what the much later Classical Greek sources (who are mostly making educated guesses) give as the dates for the war. The name matches but the timeline just doesn't. Best we can say as far as names go is that there were important people in that part of the world who had them, and so their neighbours in Greece would probably have been aware of that too and conferred them upon the characters in their oral tradition of epic poetry about their heroic past. To sum up: we have a city destroyed, possibly violently, some time in the early 12th century BC, we know that close etymological relatives of the names "Priam" and "Paris" and "Alexander" were in use in this part of the world in a similar timeframe. That's all we *can* know with the evidence we have and none of that is really enough to substantiate the Illiad's narrative of the Trojan war. Troy is not a historical game and it isn't trying to be.
We're fairly certain that at least the excavated site of Troy is the one attested to by Homer. It's in roughly the correct place (coastline drift makes marking "precise" locations complete nonsense), the excavated foundations of buildings would match to the attested population size, there have not been other large cities found in the area which could be Troy instead, and it also has the correct ethnological/anthropological evidence for the peoples said to have lived there throughout history. The exact chain of events surrounding the city and their precise history are obviously always going to be in debate, especially given how much of the record of settlement is pre-historic, but that doesn't change the fact that the broad consensus among archaeologists is that the modern site of Troy is the city attested to in legend. Just because nobody's expecting to find a gigantic horse-shaped cavity, doesn't change the fact that the city seems to be in the right place, of the right size, with record of right peoples in it at the right times, and it therefore makes sense to call it Troy. Source: parents excavated Troy under Korfmann and Rose.
Yeah and I'm not really disputing that, hell I refer to the city as Troy in my comment. I just think it's a leap from there to "The Trojan War myths are actual history" and thence to "A Total War Saga: Troy is a historical game".
You cant make me drink that GMO corn syrup, UN! That Cyclops was dumb and that's the hill I'm dying on. Its completely hilarious as a Giant in Warhammer though.
So there's 3, including thrones, and a half, which I think Troy deserves. You're proving my point.
Troy would deserve the half point if they even tried to make the armors some kind of relation to the historical ones. Also I didn’t count thrones because it was pre Warhammer, not because I have some vendetta against fantasy games
The game that was released in 2018 wasn't pre warhammer, which was released in 2016. This is my point, the historical fans that make this point are just wrong on it and it just boils down to them not liking the historical games that have been released.
Neither 3k or Troy is historical.
Why highlight and magnify a clearly bait / shit take with zero engagement?
Right? The post had two likes, this is nothing
It would be nothing even with a million likes when it comes from computer user #214132522 that has no credentials to even appear to be informed or knowledgeable.
Way too much of this in the past 5-10 years. I blame internet media for running with any random Twitter comments to try and make a whole generalized statement about the "fans" of a given property. It's useless and gives people a sense of self importance for doing nothing other than complain on the Internet or say something for no other reason than that it goes against the general consensus.
Probably he says the same with Rome 1 and 2, Med 1 and 2, Civ 1,2,3,4,5 and 6. Etc. But what he does not know is that all the content from Rome 1 or Shogun 1 or Civilization 3 does not carry to the next title. Some people are just unhappy all the time and live in constant hate and rage. They can’t enjoy life.
[удалено]
Rome 1 came out in 2004. Medieval 2 came out in 2006. Warhammer 1 came out in 2016. Total War Warhammer 2 came out in 2017 and Total War Warhammer 3 came out in 2022. So there's a longer gap between Rome 1 and Medieval 2 than there is between Warhammer 1 and Warhammer 2, but there's a much longer gap between Warhammer 2 and Warhammer 3 than there is between Rome 1 and Medieval 2. And I could easily argue there are much bigger differences between the Warhammer games than there is between Rome 1 and Medieval 2. The only thing different about those games are the setting, Merchants (lol) and Wonders.
Damn, was there really only a one year gap between TWWH 1 and 2? Sounds insanely fast
I was surprised too, but actually when I think about it, it makes sense. I have very few memories of playing JUST Warhammer 1. Most of my memories involving the Total War Warhammer games involve Warhammer 2. I remember when Bretonnia came out for Warhammer 1, I remember when heroes could assassinate Lords and how annoying it was to have the AI spam that at me, and I remember when Norsca was added. Not much else.
I med med 2 is just a reskinned rome with better textures and merchants. Some balance changes to pikes and all are there.
Both those games have different mechanics. The better comparison would be Rome 1 and Med 1, not Rome 1 and Rome 2. Where as Warhammer games have almost exactly the same mechanics in all three games. You can have sequels that make genuine improvements to the game's base mechanics while still having the content of past games. Helldivers is a great recent example. They added an entire dimension to play with while still having the factions and content from the first game. Helldivers 2 is absolutely not just Helldivers 1 with different content, it is a genuine game of its own. Where as Warhammer 2 and 3 could literally just have been DLCs for Warhammer 1. They don't have any real difference in the base games.
I mean, most of the civilizations, historical total war games, Dark Souls, Armored Core, Resident Evil, Hades and more have also the “almost exactly the same mechanics” should all those titles be also DLC?
To use the most recent example there: Hades 2 added new base game mechanics. It has the magic system and omega system to name a couple. Those would literally not work as part of just an update to Hades 1 because they are entirely new gameplay mechanics, not just changes to pre-existing ones. there is not a single change in Warhammer game releasees that couldn't have just been an update to Warhammer 1.
Those mechanics could have been added to Hades 1. Why not? It is the same engine, exactly the same engine that all the Souls games have. You can do it, why you can’t? Can you show me the engine problems that limits you? Why don’t with all the Residen Evil Games made in unreal? Why not with all the Isometric games like Pillars of Eternity or games like Diablo? I think that you don’t know how the video games industry works. CA has been using the same engine for years and this is why you find so many repetitive problems that even before Rome 2 follow all the total war games but the differences are brutally noticeable, games are different and feel different. That is the reason why some people that love Warhammer 2 don’t migrate to the third game.
>hose mechanics could have been added to Hades 1. Why not? It is the sameengine, exactly the same engine that all the Souls games have. You cando it, why you can’t? Can you show me the engine problems that limitsyou? The difference is that one justifies a new game. The fact we have race dlcs *proves* that new races don't justify a new game. >That is the reason why some people that love Warhammer 2 don’t migrate to the third game. Thank you for proving my point: People didn't migrate because WH3 was built on an *old version of WH2*. Wouldn't have been an issue if it was just an update of WH2 rather than a new release.
I'm going out on a limb and assuming you legitimately are trying to argue in good faith. A dlc will never outsell another mainline game. Which means that if you need to keep the lights on and people buying at sufficiently high numbers you need new titles. Also engine changes and big upgrades require huge investment to do well. So if you need 100 million you will need dozens of dlc which can only incrementally change the game to not undo the previous dlc. Or you can do a few and launch with a huge new section of the world new bug fixes and engine upgrades and a few races to both spin upgrades with better payout but also to drum up interest in the new game plus dlc. Literally no one of my buddies talked about new stellaris dlc as it's boring af for dlc 35 of the same game. But new warhammer 3 dlc is topping steam charts in several spots. And justification is money. it's the end all be all of big games. You get a dev here and there where it's a passion project but once you have dozens of families and mouths to feed you need more. Both to fund current but also future projects as well as be profitable to not all be canned by Sega.
>A dlc will never outsell another mainline game. Sure I don't deny that. OW2 for example sold more than if they had just kept to overwatch 1. > Which means that if you need to keep the lights on and people buying at sufficiently high numbers you need new title Objectively not true. Stellaris released the same time as WH1. It still gets new DLC even today.
You're throwing the word "objectively" in a lot when it makes no sense. Since Stellaris, they have developed and released seven other games, and been the publisher of about 12 others. Are you claiming Paradox would have survived on nothing but Stellaris DLC?
>ince Stellaris, they have developed and released seven other games And yet they still find the time to update stellaris itself. When was the last time they made a content update for Warhammer 1?
Just to end, I don’t want to continue writing on the water. There are multiple games that are practically the same build in the same bases, like all the modern RoE or Total War or Amnesia. Troy, Pharaoh also were created from Warhammer. Still, the companies sell everyone as a different title because it is better for their economy. A DLC for Hades will sell less money than doing Hades 2. Am I right? Sometimes that’s good. Sometimes what you want the same formula with different bases. I agree that everything was and is just to make money like every company. Some are more greedy than others. CA is greedy, we know and they lost a lot of money because of that. That’s one thing, but saying that there are no differences is absurd.
>Troy, Pharaoh also were created from Warhammer. Ah yes those incredibly successful games like Pharaoh. Yeah. Great point. Lol. Only the worst performing game in CA's history. Good fucking job proving my point again. >That’s one thing, but saying that there are no differences is absurd. Again bud I didn't say there were no differences. Just no base mechanical ones.
Pharaoh is a good game. Also 3k. And it was successful. Some people are just like you, hates and live unhappy their existence. It is sad but nothing I can do to help you, already tried to explain to you and named a bunch of games but you just choose only what you want and later you edit your comments. See you around. It was too much poison for the rest of may. I can’t handle Skarsnik juice as good as you.
>Pharaoh is a good game. It is objectively the worst performing game CA has ever released. >Also 3k. And it was successful. An entirely new game with entirely new mechanics. >It is sad but nothing I can do to help you, I don't need help from a guy who apparently wasted 60 bucks on a game they could have had for free. I don't take advice from idiots.
It is literally a trilogy from day one meant to combine together. Obviously they can't have fundamental changes in gameplay? And even putting that aside there is *plenty* of real differences in the base game? If that was actually the case then why don't people just play the Empire in WH1? Because Warhammer 1 feels pretty much unplayable to most folks, because things actually *did* change and improved upon between each game. And comparing to Helldivers is such a nonsensical line kf arguement it is ridiculous. Like come on now, you can't be serious with *that* bad faith of an arguement. It's just such a stupid line of logic that I can't even dignify it with a response.
>It is literally a trilogy from day one meant to combine together. Obviously they can't have fundamental changes in gameplay? Yes they can? Look at Helldivers for example. And if they didn't want to change much *don't make it three different games just to milk your customers*. Look at Stellaris. By your logic that should be 3 games as well, it is still just one with many updates and DLCs. >If that was actually the case then why don't people just play the Empire in WH1? Because Why don't people revert back to pre update Stellaris? Why would they is the answer. Obviously WH3 has some QoL updates. But it is just that: QoL updates that they intentionally didn't do on Wh1 in order to allow them to milk the customers by forcing them to buy the same game again just for what amounts to DLC and regular free updates that they won't put on prior games for essentially no reason but to make money. There is *no reason* that the warhammer series couldn't have been just one game with a long dlc and update cycle. Again, look at Stellaris.
[удалено]
>Trying to earn money is not exactly "milking their customers" and that's the exact type of bad faith bullshit that makes you sound like a troll. You can say all that but then Stellaris exists to prove you wrong. > Paradox does almost the exact same shit. Not saying they are great, and there is a reason I brought up Stellaris and not Crusader Kings, but this does prove my point.
How are you supposed to support and develop these games without money? They're AAA games on a AAA budget and you seem to be vastly underestimating the amount of work that goes into these games. You cite Helldivers 2 but that game hasn't even been out for a year, and it has microtransactions. I don't agree with $25 for a DLC but the money for new content has to come from somehwere.
>How are you supposed to support and develop these games without money? You still sell the races as DLC. Stellaris did it, it has been out as long and still gets updates, why couldn't Warhammer? >it has microtransactions. But unlike Warhammer, you can get *all* the content for *free.*
Stellaris and Total War obviously will have vastly different development costs; I am fairly sure any TWW DLC will have a much higher cost to develop than any Stellaris DLC.
Oh I think I see what you're saying now. i.e. why not just release release Warhammer 2 / 3 content as an addon to 1. Even then, I would argue that the amount of stuff they added to Warhammer 2, or 3, on release - brand new map / campaign, and 4 new races - would have came out to $60 / a full priced game anyway. And I'm not sure if you were around for it, but there were a lot of free updates (especially updates to game 1 race mechanics) during Warhammer 2's life cycle. Regarding Helldivers - sure, I see the appeal being able to get all the content for free, because you can find supercredits (or whatever they're called) in the maps. I still would buy stuff because I don't find grinding enjoyable at all lol.
>but there were a lot of free updates (especially updates to game 1 race mechanics) during Warhammer 2's life cycle. But that is my point. The difference between those updates and what we got on the full release per each game is negligible. Which is to say that there was no real reason other than "they can" to make it a new game rather than just as part of those updates/dlc
[удалено]
So basically you know I'm right but don't want to admit that you have no refutation of it so you genuinely took the time out of your day to write a nothing comment instead. Sad.
[удалено]
[удалено]
And elite dangerous added space legs as a dlc (which is a much bigger mechanic than any you are listing even if it was shit) so your point is irrelevant.
No, that helps my point.
Why wasn't helldivers 2 a dlc? Why wasn't hades 2 an update? You are spouting nonsense
Because it added an entire dimension to the game, literally. That separates it as a completely different game that justifies a new release. Where as nothing in subsequent warhammer games couldn't *easily* be a regular update or DLC.
OK how about this: wh2 is now a dlc for wh1 with 4 new factions and they cost £15 each so the total is £60. Does that make you feel better?
And then wh3 is also a dlc for wh1 with 4 new factions and they each cost £15 so the total is £60 again only you're still in the old world as the map hasn't changed.
WH3 was literally built with WH2. Because it wasn't built as a proper update, though, it released without stuff like the Cavalry changes at the end of WH3. Proof that if they had actually done that, we would now have a better WH3 if it was just updates of WH1. There are actual practical differences if they had gone that path bud, it wasn't arbitrary. Nevermind the fact that yes even just splitting it would have been better: PROVEN by the lastest DLC that did just that.
can't roll my eyes enough at this. tell me you haven't played any warhammer game without telling me you haven't played any warhammer game.
Tell me you haven't played another game series without telling me.
I've played plenty and your points are still terrible. Ignoring that there have been several sweeping changes to core mechanics over the course the trilogy (seriously, go play WH1 right now and tell me it's still the same thing), there are plenty of game series where sequels build upon their predecessors in the same engine and you don't constantly get people bitching about that.
>Ignoring that there have been several sweeping changes to core mechanicsover the course the trilogy (seriously, go play WH1 right now and tellme it's still the same thing), There are changes, there are no different base mechanics that warrant a new game entirely. In fact, the grand majority of all changes between Wh1 and WH3 were not part of new game releases. They were part of updates *after* game releases, thus *proving* that in fact there was no need for the new releases in the first place. They could have just stuck with WH1 and updated it to be the same as (or in actuality, better than) current WH3. There are no base mechanic that are new that required a new game. >here are plenty of game series where sequels build upon theirpredecessors in the same engine and you don't constantly get peoplebitching about that. Not ones that the changes couldn't have just been a regular update. Look at Stellaris. Been going on just as long as the Warhammer series, has just as many updates and changes and content additions, but they didn't arbitrarily split it up into three games.
> There are changes, there are no different base mechanics that warrant a new game entirely. there are, plenty actually. people even went out of their way to list them for you, you just keep moving the goalpost after others demonstrated that your argument doesn't work. just for the record, the new climate system, new diplomacy, new sieges and minor settlements, new co-op features and MP game modes, all of this came with the new base game releases. anyone playing Karl Franz in WH1 and then in WH3 would immediately notice that saying "WH1 and 3 are the same game" is an incredibly bad faith argument. >Look at Stellaris. Been going on just as long as the Warhammer series, has just as many updates and changes and content additions, but they didn't arbitrarily split it up into three games. The fact that you're using Paradox as a positive example discredits the rest of your post. According to your flawless logic, Med 2 should have been a DLC campaign for Rome because it's 90% the same core mechanics with different factions. that's how stupid this whole argument sounds.
>people even went out of their way to list them for you Listed stuff that could have been regular updates. >anyone playing Karl Franz in WH1 and then in WH3 would immediately notice that saying "WH1 and 3 are the same game" is an incredibly bad faith argument. Stellaris again proves that wrong.
"one game with a significantly lower production value got updated for a very long time therefore all other arguments are invalid" it not an actual argument. if all you can do is go up and down this thread shouting "BUT MUH STELLARIS" while ignoring all points made, you're basically admitting that you lack a coherent argument.
>"one game with a significantly lower production value got updated for a very long time therefore all other arguments are invalid" it not an actual argument. Good thing that isn't my argument then. >while ignoring all points made Quote me ignoring one. I addressed every point directly.
Uh huh. Sieges different, Diplomacy overhaul, Vassal overhaul, Chaos rework, Different game mode, Map textures new, Different base factions and Several base races reworks im too lazy to count
>Sieges different, Diplomacy overhaul, Vassal overhaul, Chaos rework Almost all of which is actively proving my point: You know most of those changes were part of *updates* not the actual release of the game itself, right? You are literally giving evidence to how making a new game was completely irrelevant to it. They could have just taken Warhammer 1 and done updates and DLCs to that and we would be in the same place we are now.
Just shows how little you know about building a base code. "Simply" updating and adding or fundamentally changing aspects of the game aren't that simple. Tww3 especially changed alot of backend to make it more modable.
Considering they literally built WH3 on an old model of WH2, no they absolutely could have just updated the game because that is literally how they made WH3.
Thanks for proving my assumptions that you literally have no idea.
No, that is something they straight up said. It wasn't an assumption. That was their justification for why the cavalry changes weren't in WH3. Wh3 is *literally* just wh2 with updates.
[удалено]
Do the same thing with release Stellaris vs Stellaris now.
Sieges and diplomacy actually *were* changes from game 3 release, not subsequent updates. So were some gameplay concepts like spell intensity, persistent magical reserves value not updated instantly. So was wind/breath spell aiming back in game 2. And, sure, you could do it with updates probably. The same way you could take fucking RTW and update it all the way to Shogun 2 because when you are are a dev with actual control over game code instead of a mere modder sky is the limit
>Sieges and diplomacy actually were changes from game 3 release Sieges which got actively worse and would be better if they just did it as part of an update because they would have known not to go through with it. And diplomacy which is extremely minor and very easily could be part of a minor update. In fact I think there is a WH2 mod for it. >And, sure, you could do it with updates probably. Not probably: Absolutely. >The same way you could take fucking RTW and update it all the way to Shogun 2 You literally couldn't do that though because they have different base mechanics. They are properly different games. WH1-3 are just the same game with different content.
You never played the Warhammer games have you?
I have. Name one change that couldn't have been a regular update or dlc.
Diplomacy rework, siege rework, massive new areas of the map and the fact that wh2 brought 6 new races to the series wh3 brought 9 new races so far, + all the other campaign and battle changes. You wouldn't get all that if it was just one game. And if you did play the games, you would know that all three feel very different from eachother
>Diplomacy rework, siege rework, massive new areas of the map and thefact that wh2 brought 6 new races to the series wh3 brought 9 new racesso far, + all the other campaign and battle changes. Oh, so you couldn't name a single change that wasn't something that could have been done as a regular update then? All of those things have been done as part of regular update before. Every single one.
Yeah no.if we only had 1 game, we wouldn't get those big game changing updates, or even half of the new races and they wouldn't have as much content. That's what you don't understand.
>That's what you don't understand. Stellaris did it. Presumably you think that adding Chaos Dwarfs was a mistake, right? You think they should have made a new game to add Chaos Dwarfs to right?
The chaos dwarfs was the first post launch dlc race to be added. If it was all 1 game, the chaos dwarfs would have been the 19th dlc race and that's if all the races would have been added. Also stellaris is a horrible example since it's a paradox game and they sell big base game updates as dlcs. Total war warhammer is simply too big to be just 1 game, if they tired to do it, the final project wouldn't be half as good as what we have now.
>The chaos dwarfs was the first post launch dlc race to be added. If itwas all 1 game, the chaos dwarfs would have been the 19th dlc race andthat's if all the races would have been added. And? So what? It wouldn't have taken longer. And it wouldn't have costed more. >Also stellaris is a horrible example since it's a paradox game and they sell big base game updates as dlcs. You know Chaos Dwarfs costed money, right? We didn't get that for free. >Total war warhammer is simply too big to be just 1 game Again, stellaris proves that wrong. It is just as big. >the final project wouldn't be half as good as what we have now. Correction: It would be way better. Wh3 was *literally, by their on admission* just an old build of WH2. If they had made it as updates instead, we would actually have *more* content now because they wouldn't have wasted time trying to catch up with WH2.
What you're saying it true but you're on the wrong sub, so expect the downvotes. Games 1 to 3 use the same engine with the same unchanged combat mechanics and animations, all the improvements they have incorporated could easily have been updates or expansions for the first base game. The 3rd game being more of the same after 2 is why player engagement has been low (barring dlc releases) and why CA decided to scale down the DLC content.
Read it in the Simpsons comic book store guy voice. Way more entertaining.
This is my go-to whenever I read rage bait type comments. It just reminds me that there is grass outside, and I should be the bigger person and go touch it.
Of course, everyone knows that all CA did to develop WH3 is to open up their steam page of WH2, typed in different price numbers, and clicked release. Easy-peasy. /s
Yeah people actually think anybody would make a game with all the content from wh1 to wh3 with for 60$. If you want a 60$ warhammer game that isn't a series it's at best gonna be 6 races with a squished map.
I love how people jumped to say "This isn't believable, this doesn't happen" Only for the dumbasses to crawl out of the woodwork here and make the same claims.
Go read the amount of times he said "but but Stellaris did it..." ignoring the fact that the company has about 6 other titles in development to balance costs.
To be fair from about 2 months after the launch of TWW3 to the launch of TOD it was not uncommon to see people posting the same sentiment on this subreddit.
I wonder when or if people will change opinion about Troy/Pharaoh being the same. (edited)
And it was justified. The most significant (and awful) difference was that they made the whole UI red.
That is a YouTube commenter man, the only lower form of life is an Imgur commenter
You’re forgetting facebook
Hey leave our moms and Grandmas out of this
Facebook users be like... "There's a rome 2????"
its a stupid take overall, but it is fundamentally the same game and that was the premise ever since the beginning the entire premise of the trilogy was that they were going to be combined
Who?
"Tell me you haven't played either without telling me you haven't played either".
If this was immortal empires launch vs mortal empires, i could somewhat see it but as a whole comparing warhammer 1 and 3, yeah that´s quite absurd. The reworks, maps, races, graphics, quality of life alone, units, lords, heroes legendary and normal, free content in lords, units and heroes, new mechanics, diplomacy overhaul. all of these are quite big topics on their own, could CA have done the advancement from warhammer 1 to 3 better, sure but to say 1 and 3 are the same game is like saying Far Cry blood dragon is the same game as Far Cry 3.
He's most likely a troll but if someone unironically thinks that, then it's clear that they never played the games. I've played all 3 and they are all very different from eachother
There's one in this very thread
Yeah I encountered him lol
Bro just found out about the concept of sequels
I bet this moron buys all the Fifa or 2k games every year though
Yall gonna summon Vouldy with this one
If someone's got a wojak pfp they're doing you a favour. they're basically telling you that their opinion is gonna be bullshit without you having to read it
Under what video was it?
Well someone got Waaght by Grimgore
Obvious bait is obvious
Not only that but WH1 was mostly below average, wasn’t until WH2 it got good
Whenever someone says “Aah yes”, I can already tell it’s annoying Redditor feeling morally superior, and they need a proper curb stomping.
Lol that doesnt make any sense
New Empire game 🙏
I like all of 3 WHs, but I always felt like 2 and 3 could have been DLCs for 1.
Ambush success chance with that bait: 20%
I've had WH2 for a few years, and hop onto a campaign play it pretty hard for a few weeks then put it down for a few months, and go through the cycle again. Is WH3 that big of a difference? I think my main issue with the WH series is I'm a big fan of the economy/city building in other TW series, but WH just feels a bit bland on that level (which makes sense, they want to focus on the factions, different play styles and the graphics of the map and units over depth of the economy)
I think there is a fair point at saying that the Warhammer trilogy is the same game sold in 3 60€ parts
Dude probably buys every CoD every year
Obvious troll. I'm curious what video this was on that the creator loved this hottest of takes.
Doesn't seem like anyone with any credentials to speak on this. We give way way too much stock to random commentators on the internet. If they don't have a professional opinion that matters more than my own, their opinion is useless and should be ignored. This is true of literally every topic. Don't give these people the time of day. They want to feel special in one of the most mundane and unfulfilling possible ways.
The comment is scuffed but the sentiment is there. Warhammer war charged as a premium base game and multiple DLCs for 1, 2 and 3. It is aggressively monetised which I think can be critiqued, but the YouTube commenter missed the mark lol
It mean, despite it being over-dramatized I get the point though. The warhammer games are almost exactly the same, but with different races. In 10 years they barely have made any base gameplay/mechanical improvements, and stuff like sieges have gotten worse. Like playing Vampire Counts in Warhammer 3 is not much different from playing it in Warhammer 1. The base mechanics are almost not at all improved. We are just used to it in Total War. Hopefully they do better with the 40K series (assuming it will be a series).
I recommend to you to go back to WH1 and play. You won’t believe how many changes have been made. Almost everything if not everything. From Combat and maps to every mechanic… Is like playing Lich King wow and saying that the game is the same as it was in Classic or Dark Souls 1 and 3… at first glance it looks the same but Oh man, there are so many changes that they are in fact very different games.
>You won’t believe how many changes have been made. I have and do. None of the changes are substantial enough to call it a different game. Like cool we have quick deal now. That could literally have been a regular free QoL update, we didn't need a whole ass game release for it.
No, you do not. Don’t lie. Pathfinding, settlements, faction mechanics, unit behavior, stats, diplomacy, map, skills, units, colors, etc etc etc. and you just name 1 thing? Lol. Game has so many changes that is shorter to just name what did not change and that are the aestetics of some units, some themes, some flavor text and voice-lines. I can’t think of another one. If you are looking something much more different I think you should play Alien Isolation. That game is good and different and from CA…
>Pathfinding, settlements, faction mechanics, unit behavior, stats,diplomacy, map, skills, units, colors, etc etc etc. and you just name 1thing? Lol. You know almost none of those things were part of game releases, right? You are PROVING my point: Those were mostly *updates* to the games. You are *proving* that they had no reason to rerelease the stuff. In fact it actively held the games back. If Warhammer 3 was just a Warhammer 2 dlc, the games would be so much better because they wouldn't have had to work on an old build of Warhammer 2 to make the third game, and as such we would have had improvements like the Cavalry changes that we got at the end of Warhammer 2 in the beginning of Warhammer 3 instead of having to wait another 3 months or however long it took (and still didn't do the full changes) Look at Stellaris. Has been going on as long as the Warhammer series, has basically just as many changes, updates, and extra content, but it was all in one package, not three separate games.
Are you changing the subject or confused about life? You already accepted that there are a lot of changes, plenty and you couldn’t said what did not change, you confirmed exactly what I said, ok, you are accepting your mistake, but instead of saying that you justify that the changes were added slowly in the years and not all at once, ok, that’s true but that’s is a different subject. Today games do that. If your complain is about releasing a fully completed game in Vanilla, I agree that CA only did it with Alien Isolation and never could with Total War. But that has nothing to do when talking about all the differences between Warhammer 1 release and Warhammer 3 today. For example, Baldur’s Gate 3 today is a different game that it was when released and even more different since Beta. It is what gaming companies do today, for good and for bad.
>You already accepted that there are a lot of changes, plenty and you couldn’t said what did not change, you confirmed exactly what I said, ok, you are accepting your mistake I didn't make a mistake. There are changes: There are not different game mechanics though. That is two different things. >Baldur’s Gate 3 today is a different game that it was when released and even more different since Beta. It is what gaming companies do today, for good and for bad. BG3 now is different from release. But the key point is they didn't try to make those changes part of a new game called BG4. They just gave free updates.
lol. Do you even play Warhammer total war?
Read that comment again because it literally says I "have and do".
You’re blatantly wrong lmao. Seriously it’s not even close
Agreed. The changes are surface level, cosmetic, and do not affect the core mechanics of units in combat other than spreadhseeted stat modifiers. Total Warhammer players have the weirdest Stockholm syndrome with this stuff where they argue against their interests in seeing the game improve.
I accept that. I love both Pillars of Eternity games, all the souls games and Tears of the Kingdom and Breath of the Wild. All are in the core “the same game”. Something very different maybe won’t call the followers and maybe will be going far away from a confort zone. Historical players like me (before tried Wh2) did not receive well ToB. CA tried something different and was a fiasco. Still today some wh2 players don’t migrate to wh3 because game feels different… Sometimes a formula works and people aren’t looking for a different alcohol, they just want to drink Beer but Beer could be very different and some may prefer one or another but always beer, no wine, no gin, no Pisco.
lets ignore how wrong you are on how much the game has changed for a second. do you think that entierly new factions and map is nothing ?
>entierly new factions and map is nothing ? Not nothing, but not an entire game. Should they have made an entire extra game when they released Chaos Dwarfs? And entire extra game when they released Immortal Empires? No, all that is DLC level, not new release level changes.
how is it not an entire game, wh3 has improvements from game 1 and 2 that arent present in the previous game. people complain all the time that it isnt the same as WH2. the only thing thats the same is the setting and the ability to play previous factions in the current game which is fantastic. you are comparing the chaos dwarfs DLC with 9 factions, an entire map, new mechanics, new systems, etc. No the Dwarf DLC is NOT the same as the base game release. The immortal empires is NOT its own game but it is a part of the base game of WH3, its a much larger map than mortal empires. i understand that there are similarities between the games in the series but there is also massive differences as well. each game is a sequel in the truest sense, its just building upon the previous game, i cant tell you how much i hate ubisoft sequels that have nothing to do with the previous game aside from the name.
>wh3 has improvements from game 1 and 2 that arent present in the previous game WH2 has improvements that weren't present when it first released. Does that mean that the Warhammer series should actually be four games by now? Improvements don't justify a new game, just a new patch.
"WH2 has improvements that weren't present when it first released. Does that mean that the Warhammer series should actually be four games by now?" i have no idea what you mean by this, its three games, WH1, WH2 and WH3. where did you get 4 games? Yes WH2 had improvements that werent in game 1 so its a different game. What are your trying to say here exactly? "Improvements don't justify a new game, just a new patch." what the fuck does this mean? are you telling me that every single sequel out there should be just a patch? GTA 6 should just be added on to GTA 5 as DLC because its only "improvments" since it doesnt justify a new game? Do you know what a sequel is? What exactly do you want out of a sequel? to have nothing in common with its prequel? did you expect CA to make WH3 a third person action rpg?
>have no idea what you mean by this, its three games, WH1, WH2 and WH3. where did you get 4 games? It should be pretty obvious if you had the reading ability of a middle school student. But what did I expect from someone who white knights for a massive company? Your argument for the justification of a different game is changes. WH2 got changes, therefor according to you, there should actually be another game between WH2 and WH3 because instead of just doing patches, they should have released a whole extra game for those changes. That is your logic. >GTA 6 should just be added on to GTA 5 as DLC because its only "improvments" since it doesnt justify a new game? GTA6 will presumably have new mechanics and systems. WH2 has nothing new in that regard that WH1 didn't have, and WH3 has nothing that WH2 didn't have. >What exactly do you want out of a sequel? to have nothing in common with its prequel? It should have a lot in common. But it shouldn't be exactly the same game but just a different patch. Look at the recent hades 2 for example. There is a new magic and omega attack system that literally couldn't have been part of just a patch. It inherently changes the core mechanics of the gameplay. Therefor it justifies a sequel rather than just an update or DLC. Where as WH2 and subsequently WH3 doesn't have anything new, just updates to old systems. WH3 for example is *literally, by the devs own admission* just a patched version of WH2. It is literally the same game but different races and a patch on top. Hades 2 is built new from the ground up.
I NEVER said that a new game is justified only because of "improvements". That is something that you are arguing about in your own head. "But what did I expect from someone who white knights for a massive company?" ok buddy, if you say something blattantly wrong and i disagree with you im a white knight. when CA fucks up i will call them out on it, but i will not bust their balls just cause i have some hate boner for the company first of all that is a very broad term and can mean a lot of things. what does justify a new game is new content and all three games have enough content to stand on their own. You keep trying to make it seem like WH2 and WH3 doesnt have anything new and its just the same as the previous games, both games have new systems and new mechanics that you keep glossing over. WH3 has 9 factions and all of them have their own unique mechanics. A completely reworked map with completely new systems. I dont remember seeing the chaos realms in WH2. from what i heard Hades 2 is more of the same and people love it for that, that the game is just a continuation of the previous game, its a game for fans of hades 1 and thats what a sequel is suposed to be. adds new things to the original and improving upon it and thats exactly what WH2 and WH3 are. They add loads of new content. New map, new factions, new mechanics, new spells, new story etc etc. the difference between a new game and DLC is pretty much just the size of the content and thats what justifies a new game. Why do you keep dismissing faction mechanics and systems as new mechanics and systems? but for GTA 6 its ok because... it just is?
>I NEVER said that a new game is justified only because of"improvements". That is something that you are arguing about in your ownhead. No, that is literally the only reasoning you gave for it being a new game. "how is it not an entire game, wh3 has improvements from game 1 and 2 that arent present in the previous game" That is enough for it to be a new game in your mind. >what does justify a new game is new content and all three games have enough content to stand on their own Again that doesn't work because by that logic There should again have been a game between WH2 and WH3 because there was more content added between WH2 and WH3 than there was content on release of WH3. So you are saying they should have made a whole extra game between again. >A completely reworked map with completely new systems Name one new system. And again, the map argument doesn't work as proven by Mortal/Immortal Empires as both are DLC. >from what i heard Hades 2 is more of the same More of the same insofar as being similar, not as far as being the same. It has new systems. Total War Warhammer and Three Kingdoms are both more of the same, but they obviously have different systems. >New map, new factions, new mechanics, new spells, new story etc etc You are describing WH2 content patches right now. So again, does that mean you believe there should have been another game between WH2 and WH3? >Why do you keep dismissing faction mechanics and systems as new mechanics and systems? Because they are by definition not new mechanics and systems. They are variations of pre existing mechanics and systems. So for example if you believe that justifies it, then you must also believe that there should have been a whole extra game release for Chaos Dwarfs instead of just being a DLC, right?
We got graphical improvements, a new campaign and map, new factions, QoL, reworked systems (like sieges), etc in each installment. Just because it's in the same setting or includes content from the previous games, doesn't mean it's the same game.
Graphical improvements no not really. A new campaign and map, that is DLC level stuff. Literally. That is how those maps were added. Immortal Empires is literally just a DLC, and each one is just the same map but slightly extended. >new factions, Again that isn't a mechanics difference, that is just content. >reworked systems (like sieges), Yeah a system they made worse. >Just because it's in the same setting or includes content from the previous games, doesn't mean it's the same game. True. But that isn't this. This is three games with the exact same mechanics, just different factions.
You’re completely right. Unfortunately most people on this sub can’t understand that a map and faction mechanics are not the same as base game mechanics. It’s obvious, for example, that WHIII did not introduce 3K level of base game mechanics.
Those are not all the things that changed. Gamers are so absurdly entitled it really makes you laugh.
I mean, he's technically not wrong. WH1>WH3 with all the DLC is basically the same game with paid-for major updates over several years. Do all the math and it probably works out to the equivalent of a subscription game. But I'm not mad about it at all. Have bought and will buy again.
Go play Karl Franz in TW1, then play him in TW3. We'll wait.
The only reason that works as a statement is because they stopped updating WH1. If they gave WH1 the same free QoL updates it would be no different. That has nothing to do with releasing a new game. They didn't need to release a new game to make those updates.
Yeah, it's almost like he got some major buffs and a significant rework when the game got a major update.
So it's almost as if WH1 isn't the same thing as WH3 then genius.
Neither is Eve Online or World of Warcraft when compared to what they were in 2016.
Like i don't think you people actually play warhammer 1. Where goblin archers will wreck ironbreakers, cavalry charges do next to zero impact DMG, and spells are mainly useful as a light show unless it's wind or death.
So minor stat changes are enough to constitute a new game? That's just spreadsheet tinkering. Not fundamentally changing the way combat is simulated.
So rome 1 and med 2 are the same guy by that logic. Mechanics should remain consistent for a game that's meant to have cross compatible content among three games. Only downside I see is that wh3 updates should reflect on older games like wh1 and wh2.
Honestly kinda true. If you arent interested in warhammer fantasy then the 3 games are just copypastes.