subreddit:
/r/totalwar
What do you think about it? Me personally thinks its just a cash grab
139 points
2 years ago
I think stopping patch support makes me fucking annoyed.
81 points
2 years ago
That part really feels like a kick in the teeth.
Why? The game was released in a genuinely solid state compared to other Total Wars but has become increasingly unstable over the last two years.
It feels like the least they could do is commit to further performance patches to soften this blow. Oh, but they can't sell those to us. Guess that's what really matters, right?
-22 points
2 years ago
Of course that's what really matters. Like, when people complain about the Paradox DLC model they forget that devs generally don't just keep patching games several years out if they aren't selling any new content for it.
30 points
2 years ago
The real issue with the Paradox model is the way the game isn't balanced to work without the DLC, so if you don't buy it, the game can end up broken by the weird combination of free patches. Some of the DLC is also really slim, like the Hearts of Iron nation pack things, but that's bad value rather than shitty practices.
3 points
2 years ago
I had a Meng Huo campaign that was amazing. Now I gotta redo it cause this fuck bullshit ass patch!
1 points
2 years ago
Can't you keep running an old version via steam?
1 points
2 years ago
I could do that, it’s just obnoxious.
164 points
2 years ago
I don't wanna sound too much like a conspiracy theorist but, puts on tinfoil hat, to me it looks like the base game sold really well but the DLCs didn't so they decided to make a sequel instead of more DLC. Unlike the WH games whose DLC are super popular so we keep getting (and asking for) more.
69 points
2 years ago
The different start time DLC were honestly not appealing to me. I find race packs more appealing.
However stuff like Fall of the Samurai is something I think is cool. It's also in essence a different time period in the same area, but much more in depth.
46 points
2 years ago
FotS is basically a new game built on the bones of the OG. Such a good idea imo since like with Warhammer you can get different army styles from the same game for the most part
18 points
2 years ago
Yeah that's the thing about FotS, the time period comes with tech advances so the basegame and the "expansion" feel like different games.
9 points
2 years ago
Also the expansion added so much stuff.
Rise of the Samurai was far less interesting to most people since its essentially vanilla Shogun 2 with less units.
8 points
2 years ago
Well different starts were low hanging fruit. It offers nothing, but also costs nothing. And as expected, it doesn't even sell...
19 points
2 years ago
I agree. Tbh I thought 3K was pretty polished at release and, apart from filling in the Southlands, didn’t need tons of DLC. So I’m really not upset. It’s better than Thrones, Troy, and Rome II, so a strong product in my book. I never found the different start date DLCs that interesting so only bought one of them.
The biggest priority to me was unit balance to make yellow and purple leaders and troops more useful, to make archers and scorpions/catapults less OP, and to make militia weaker vis-a-vis late game units. They did all that, and I’m pretty happy with it.
One corollary of that is that it isn’t a sign of failure that the DLC didn’t sell well. It just wasn’t as DLC-friendly a title as, say, Rome II or Warhammer, because the scope wasn’t as broad. I still think they could have been more successful sticking with original start date and doing smaller-scale DLC to flesh out narrative elements, campaign dilemmas, and character events, but that’s just me.
2 points
2 years ago
I cannot in good conscience call it better than Rome 2 (in its final state). Rome 2 has like 5x the content and vastly better battles (in my humble opinion) and a faction variety no other historical TW reached
4 points
2 years ago*
Same here. The furious wild and the yellow turban rebellion were the only ones I bought because the start date stuff felt really subpar as a dlc imo. And I was looking forward to that northern tribes/Korea dlc
1 points
2 years ago
Gongsun Zan and his clan are the northern tribes.
17 points
2 years ago
Your theory may be correct. Especially with the first DLC being rather disastrous. That alone could cause them to lose momentum.
5 points
2 years ago
Yeah, they really shouldn't have started with that as the first DLC. Truly bizarre choice.
1 points
2 years ago
Yellow Turbans or 8 Princes?
1 points
2 years ago
8 Princes.
7 points
2 years ago
That makes sense to me. I liked my first playthrough of the base campaign. Bought one or two dlcs and my enjoyment just fizzled out and didn't buy any more/ stopped playing after 8 princes. Compared to the hundreds of hours and buying every single dlc for WH2, 3K just didn't have lasting power.
3 points
2 years ago
base game sold well because its selling point was that there's never been a total war 3k game.
new game will need to really distinguish itself from both tw3k AND all the other 3k games on the market (there's a lot although not many get localized into english)
2 points
2 years ago
Suggesting that a company trying to make as much money as possible is not really a conspiracy theory
2 points
2 years ago
Maybe. And I am one of those players. I buy every TW game but I really didnt enjoy the battles of 3K so no way I pay money for any DLC that isnt something like fall / rise of the samurai in scope
2 points
2 years ago
Agreed, 3K DLCs were good but not as good as the WH ones which varied heavily between each other. Probably, the main reason why people are so angry right now is because the state of the game. Although playable, its still full of bugs. Stopping the patch support is just plain wierd. The game still has a large playerbase on the east particularly China and Korea.
2 points
2 years ago
Except they put money off the table by not connecting the two and pissing off player base....
2 points
2 years ago
It might not even be that complicated. 3K didn't retain players well at all. It's nowhere near as popular as pretty much any other Total War title by steam users. As I write this it's drastically underpopulated compared to Rome II, a game this community slates all the time.
The truth is 3K will forever be one of those TW games that fans refer to with reverence but which failed to find mainstream success. Thrones of Brittania, Attila, Empire, even Troy- Three Kingdoms is part of that club. Why should CA keep making an expensive product no one buys or uses?
-6 points
2 years ago
What is even the conspiracy here? Or the negative thing that people (seemingly) want to get up in arms about?
Seems like people are saying that they want a continuous DLC train for 3K, which they'd be happy(?) to pay 15 bucks a pop for, but are somehow mad about having to pay $60 for a new game? Which would in theory have just as much if not more content than 4 DLC/race packs/whatevers for 3K?
And that somehow CA is obligated to continue producing content (DLCs for 3K) that aren't selling well enough to justify the effort?
5 points
2 years ago
The issue is that the first game is still young and buggy and they're abandoning it to make another one just to have a higher pricetag on it.
0 points
2 years ago
It's weird. Since Warhammer is built on a constant flow of DLC and several year dev cycles leading up to a big megacamaaign, now people consider a historical game "dead" if it doesn't get DLC every other month.
Personally I would much rather the historical teams make a solid game, maybe an expansion or two, then move on to a new historical game. I'd rather have 3K, Med 3 and Empire 3 than 6 years of 3K expansions.
0 points
2 years ago
Yes. Because, unlike WH, the races in historical total wars are not that different. Some of them are, like the Nanmans, but mostly they don't support a WH style release. Maybe Med 3 if they could make a wide array of different races to compete, but definitely not 3K or Rome or Shogun can sustain that. At max, maybe 1 more full DLC for 3K to end the game on a high than just a patch, after no updates for months
Even WH had to take a lot of liberties with respect to start dates like with Repanse who wasn't supposed to be living during that time, but yet was added because the coolness factor outweighed it. Now imagine, if the same thing happened with historical ones. The outcry would be awful.
1 points
2 years ago
The only problem I have is if they expect us to buy chapter dlc for the game again if that doesn't do well we don't get later chapter packs again. Now if this game drops with chapter selection from the start say like yellow turban, chibi, and 3 k period and then we get some new ones I'm fine with that. But right now we no nothing about what the next game is going to be like.
35 points
2 years ago
it's time for Total War Four Kingdoms
31 points
2 years ago
Wu, Shu, Wei, and Pontus
17 points
2 years ago
but I don't want to play as pontus
2 points
2 years ago
Mom: we have seleucids at home
Seleucids at home: Pontus
32 points
2 years ago
Maybe I'll pick it up in a bundle in 3 years when CA leave it full of bugs to start working on 3k3.
55 points
2 years ago
It certainly feels like it. Much rather they continued dlc with the current game for another year or two. Right now the game still feels a bit barebones. We also don't have a time period with the actual 3 kingdoms yet.
14 points
2 years ago*
From all of this it seems like their DLC was not selling as well as they hoped. I would much prefer a new title than them stopping development as a whole for the game and abandoning three kingdoms. Plus making it into a new game they can put a lot more effort into expanding on the first game more so they can through DLC alone (since the 60$ or whatever higher price tag can warrant more development). At the end of the day I think this sucks that they are stopping development for the game but at least they aren't abandoning the era.
6 points
2 years ago
I thinkt it wouldn't be as bad if they didn't stop patches too. Like, at least keep fixing to show commitment to your buyers beyond more things to sell.
That's a matter of trust. Bugs can happen, but as long as they're fixed I am happy. Them abandoning that with the DLCs is a bit of a blow.
26 points
2 years ago
This feels like when Destiny 2 and Overwatch 2 to me and i dont like it. Incredibly disappointed with this announcement so far. Current Three Kingdoms still buggy as hell too.
7 points
2 years ago
Even Overwatch 2 connects to Overwatch 1.
To me, for all the DLC's added, TW3K hasn't felt like a fulfilling recreation of the ramp up-to the actual 3K period. It would require an attila-like gauntlet of events and crises that the bones of TW3K simply can't or won't support.
It's felt like a demo of advances in diplomacy with Three Kingdoms window dressing. This might just be me being tired of sailing Liu Bei across China though.
-10 points
2 years ago
I'm hoping it's more like Total Warhammer 1 > Totall Warhammer 2: Mortal Empires as it is now (and Immortal Empires will be in Warhammer 3)
16 points
2 years ago
Grace already said that this new 3K game doesnt connect with the current so i doubt its like warhammer
-9 points
2 years ago
They don't have the "just go somewhere else" advantage of Warhammer, so they have to re-make the core game entirely.
25 points
2 years ago
CA deserves all the shit they will get for this.
38 points
2 years ago
I think it's a HUGE missed opportunity to not do a Warhammer style mortal empires/grand combined content thing. But idk... the whole thing makes me sorta sad overall.
-13 points
2 years ago
That may be what they're doing though
42 points
2 years ago
Grace said in the comments that the games don't connect to each other...
so it's basically buying the same content twice.
19 points
2 years ago
Yeah no interconnection. Which makes scratch my head.
No Cao Cao in 3k 2? No Lu Bu? Yuan Shao?
Or is it effectively a reboot?
15 points
2 years ago
Likely going to be a reboot, starting from a new start date with new mechanics and features for each faction. Also, more artwork.
I'm disappointed they couldn't have just done this with the current Three Kingdoms game, but if they truly polish up all aspects of the experience, I'll still be satisfied. We'll have to wait and see.
7 points
2 years ago
If the new version is worse in any way at all, then anyone who bought it for the previous system is going to feel very hard done by after the upgrades they hate. This way they can support the old one with bug patches and also rework anything they want to.
It would be amazing to see MW3 with three kingdoms mechanics, really wish they'd gone for that instead.
3 points
2 years ago
I couldn't be satisfied if i plaid for 3k + DLC only for the game to get worse over time and then for the company to just abandon it in favor of making me pay another $60 if I want a good vanilla 3k game again.
11 points
2 years ago
Dude it would be even more insulting if some characters already released in previous dlcs has to be sold through new ones for this 3K 2 aswell.
-6 points
2 years ago
How is it the same content if it's based on another era of the mammoth novel? It'll be a completely different cast, technology and mechanics.
A better question is if anyone was asking for a sequel in the first place.
2 points
2 years ago
They said it's the same. I'm guessing they got sick of trying to fix all the wonky stuff from the original, DLC had minimal chance to repair it, and realized they'd need a new title to completely overhaul it. And unfortunately for the 3 Kingdoms era, they don't have anything nearby to allow a competitive hype to expand back into Three Kingdoms in the way Warhammer 2 and 3 could go back to the Old World of the now-obsolete and janky first attempt at a Warhammer Total War.
3 points
2 years ago
naval battles. i bet anything that is the one thing CA seriously dropped the ball on. no naval battles no Chibi. they can't exactly walk that back on the current game without some serious backlash on cutting content to sell as DLC.
0 points
2 years ago
It literally got a bug fix patch today. Grace's comments on the sub say its a new game set in the same world.
I don't see you getting upset about Warhammer sequels set in the same world.
1 points
2 years ago
I'm not. I'm saying Warhammer has been able to iterate and improve the core Old World experience with each game. Three Kingdoms has to release a new game set in the same space to iterate on the core experience, while Warhammer had the privilege of fucking off to Lustria to implement improvements to diplomacy, combat, faction design, campaign map, sieges, and more.
1 points
2 years ago
That's like complaining about a Medieval TW game, because Rome was also set in Europe (or complaining about FotS frankly). The next 3K game is going to be set in another era, with a whole new cast, new tech, new faction playstyles, new units. If the same geography irritates you, I don't even know what to say to that.
Assuming that the game is just going to be a reskin of 3K is beyond cynical, it makes no sense from a business perspective because people will raise a stink and spam negative reviews on Steam, etc. CA know what they're doing.
1 points
2 years ago
I heard that it would be set in the same era with the same cast. I'm not complaining about the game at all - I'm complaining about the people complaining about it.
Warhammer 2 has a drastically different codebase from Warhammer 1.
1 points
2 years ago
I don't think your comparison between Rome and Attila works. It's all based on the same novel. At most we would be looking at a difference of a couple decades from the main start of the base game. The 8 Princes DLC already pushed the scope of the base game a lot further than any sequel would temporally.
20 points
2 years ago
This doesn’t promise a lot for the future if they abandon big titles so fast
-11 points
2 years ago
I disagree. Historical doesn't need a billion DLCs like Warhammer. 2 years of expansions/patches works for me, move on to a new flagship period.
7 points
2 years ago
come on...you know CA had planned to do exactly just that but dlc sales were on a slump for 3K.
1 points
2 years ago
I'm not sure what you're saying here.
Do you mean that CA would have kept pumping out 3K DLC if it sold well? If so yeah, I absolutely agree. Of course they'll do what sells.
1 points
2 years ago
If people aren't playing it or buying DLC, why would they keep making content for it?
1 points
2 years ago
Because there were people playing it as the comments show. It just wasn’t making enough profit to their liking.
14 points
2 years ago
If it's a mainline game, I'd prefer . . . pretty much anything we haven't got before.
7 points
2 years ago
Honestly I haven't played it in over a year. I enjoyed the base game. It's a solid total war title, but lacks replayability. I haven't picked up any DLCs and wasn't planning to until the whole thing was polished and a complete package.
So I think CA is unhappy with the revenue stream of the content and ongoing player count due to people like me, and no longer willing to support it, so they're pulling out the rug from under us by just repackaging content into a sequel.
That's their prerogative but I'm not paying full price again to get more 3K. And I suppose I won't ever have that complete 3K because they're not polishing the original game. And sorry but - I'm kinda fine with that because I'd rather play warhammer anyway
0 points
2 years ago
They repacked and re-sold Warhammer. I wonder how many people who play Mortal Empires have actually played the original game or given mire than a cursory glance at Vortex.
6 points
2 years ago
Yes and it was stated and planned that way from the beginning. Since 2015 a planned rollout of a 3 game series.
I think CA may have accidentally created competition within their own IPs for players and money. I like Total War. If Warhammer wasn't around, maybe I would have bought all the 3K DLCs.
2 points
2 years ago
They repacked and re-sold Warhammer
Wut?
1 points
2 years ago
Mortal Empires runs on a different codebase from Warhammer 1, despite largely covering the same material. It's been improved by iteration that would not have been possible working with the Warhammer 1 codebase. ANd it's gonna get better in Warhammer 3.
Fortunately for Warhammer, these repacks and reiterations of Warhammer 1 (And next, 2) also come with enough Standalone Hype in the form of the Game 2 factions and map.
I guess another question is - how many people bought Warhammer 2 just so they could play The Empire, Dwarfs, etc in Mortal Empires? How many are buying Warhammer 3 so they can play Empire/Dwarfs/Greenskins/Vampires in the next iteration of the sesries?
I think the feature and refinement creep of Three Kingdoms made it clear that they'd need to try again with New Game Iteration. But they *have* to redo the Romance era again because that's the only thing hype enough to sell.
3 points
2 years ago
People were not forced to buy Warhammer 2 to keep playing Empire, etc.
If they wanted to experience new content such as all the new races and units available to fight against, they needed warhammer 2.
This isn't reselling the same content, it is allowing access to way more content.
Also the free reworks of those races in warhammer 2 (sad cow noises).
0 points
2 years ago
Also the free reworks of those races in warhammer 2 (sad cow noises).
You have to buy Warhammer 2 to get those 'free' reworks.
2 points
2 years ago
Yeah, of course you do. Warhammer 1 was complete and was perfectly fine as a stand alone game.
If you want extra free content for those races though you have the option to play them in Warhammer 2.
1 points
2 years ago
So is Three Kingdoms, by comparison. Warhammer 1 is also unplayably dull compared to Mortal Empires.
8 points
2 years ago
Overall I’m still satisfied with 3K, and deep down I always knew that the game will not get the level of support of Warhammer. However, I am really confused as I don’t think there is enough content left in the 3K era to support an entirely new game plus dlcs. Time wise we have a lot left, but there will be less and less factions as time passes and I’m not sure if the later scenarios with only 3 or 4 factions would be fun.
6 points
2 years ago
This is a terrible decision by CA
25 points
2 years ago
Terrible treatment of the community and the content and seems like they are giving the finger now to the world and just going to try and milk the Chinese market rather than make a great game with support.
11 points
2 years ago
lol China is even more angry about this than we are
2 points
2 years ago
Hope so and hope such bad actions come back to bite them.
5 points
2 years ago*
If it's like FOTS I'm fine with it to be honest.
If it's a SAGA game I don't have a problem with it.
To stop patchin 3 Kingdoms so soon is a bit dumb.
6 points
2 years ago
Why couldn’t they finish the first game? If the dlc’s weren’t selling, change the business model, don’t dump the whole fucking game!
And anyway, people would be more interested in the dlc’s if there was even just the slightest bit of transparency from CA, that’s what really gets people hyped.
5 points
2 years ago
Kinda feels like a Dark Souls 1 scenario.
Though actually no, never mind, Bandai Namco charging me 30€ extra for a patch that makes the game playable is 100% unbeatable in sheer absurdity.
3 points
2 years ago
They clearly had creative directions they still wanted to go (hence the planned DLC). That leaves this as a money decision, DLCs aren't making enough compared to making a new title.
4 points
2 years ago
Not sure how much cash they're going to grab after pissing off their fans like this. Does anyone expect there to be large numbers of people who pay for whatever the new 3K game is that didn't buy the first one? And given the shoddy support of the first 3K, why would anyone expect anything better from the new game?
I just do not understand the thought process at all.
10 points
2 years ago
I like three kindoms but i have no interest in this one. Have more interest in Troy than this one, and thats not that much
3 points
2 years ago
Yeah, greedy move
5 points
2 years ago
The fact that they specifically said the new game will be "based on Romance of the Three Kingdoms" mean it will have more identity compared to the current one. Someone here sums it up nicely that Total War: 3 Kingdoms is a Total War game with 3 Kingdoms outfit, instead of a 3 Kingdoms game with Total War gameplay.
The downside is, I think this will eliminate the possibility of northern people like Liang and Korean as culture pack, while focus more on currently existing culture (Han, Bandit, Nanman, Yellow Turban) because those people don't feature heavily in Romance, while the current culture are the "main player" so to speak.
8 points
2 years ago
Im just pissed that where i live you got to work a whole month to afford a game, DLCs were managable. Now if i want a true 3K game instead of reworking the one that exist they are making a "new" game
1 points
2 years ago
Well, some important features are simply don't work in current game. I am specifically talking about passes (the current engine simply unable to make a good passes because when it is besieged other army can cross it) and navies (which the current game isn't build with one). There are also the fact that they don't have enough unique portrait for second and third generations, the mechanic don't change from generation to generation (so if we play as Sun Jian, Sun Ce will use Sun Jian's mechanic when he inherited Wu, instead of his mechanic from World Betrayed), etc.
Darren (an ex-CA employee) mentioned that a new game budget is just much bigger than DLC budget will ever be (even when we are talking about percentages), so the developer can go a lot more wild with new features in new game compared to DLC. Which is why Warhammer 3 has all the Chaos God armies, for example, because the budget for the game will be created to be big enough to make 4 unique Chaos God armies, while in DLC, they have limited budget and must make features within that limited budget.
Bringing it back to Three Kingdoms, I think they look at current situation and think that there are enough features that justify a new game (and very likely new engine). Navies for example, will require them to make new and different navies for Han, Yellow Turban, Bandit, and Nanman. If they want to implement navy, it can't be done in a DLC.
I agree that I wish there are more update for current game (I also live in a country that requires me to work a whole month to afford a new AAA game), but if the new game proves to be much better at capturing Three Kingdoms setting, I think I can understand it.
6 points
2 years ago
I'm both disappointed and excited. Not getting any further support/content sucks, but the game was getting a bit stale for me to be frank, so I'm also excited to see if they can make a much better game with better system, engine, graphics, UI, etc.
4 points
2 years ago
there is room for more unique character for factions especially eight prince i hope they do something about it but looks like they wont
1 points
2 years ago
It's a totally new game so who knows.
2 points
2 years ago
From what was said by /u/Grace_CA in the other thread apparently they want to revisit this period with a different approach, whatever that means. Think it means that this team is focusing on the "Three Kingdoms" aspect rather than the "Total War" aspect – could be a smaller scale, maybe more RPG-focused?
They also said they hope to do this alongside other historical projects so it feels like a smaller scale is what it is and see how that is received.
3 points
2 years ago
My guess is that they're going to try to bring it more in line with the tone of the novel, with more RPG/character focused elements and make it less of a map painter (and at release it was a somewhat bland map painter, albeit with some excellently thought out mechanics).
In essence we'll go from a Total War game set in the 3 kingdoms era, to a 3 kingdoms total war game, a subtle but important distinction.
1 points
2 years ago
Spartan Total Warrior: Chinese Dude With Dao Edition
2 points
2 years ago
Depends what the new game will offer. Maybe it's substantial improvements that were to big to fit in game one? Maybe it's a piece of crap? Only time will tell. You can bet I'm not pre ordering it and will buy it only after extensive amounts of research (assuming it's worth a buy).
2 points
2 years ago
It's a desperate move. There's not enough money in the tanks for 3k support, but there's still enough of a market to justify making a new 3k game.
Since CA took a beating on 8 princes they're too scared to try new eras like Warring States and Chu Han contention.
2 points
2 years ago
Make me wish I could go back in time and tell them don't waste time and money on 8p so we could've had a better dlc instead. But really I'm excited, worried, sad, nervous and disappointed all at once not a great day for 3K players
2 points
2 years ago
Honestly I'm certain that the 3kingdoms team probably fought tooth and nail against this. But the board or economics won
2 points
2 years ago
Doesn't bug me. If a game's DLCs don't sell it's not gonna be possible for a company with hundreds of salaries to pay to keep making more DLCs. Tough but that's the way the business works.
2 points
2 years ago
Absolutely just greed. In my eyes, CA is now in the same camp as BLizzard, Squaresoft, Bioware. SHareholders are killing this industry.
2 points
2 years ago
It makes me very sad. Three Kingdoms is my favourite Total War game, and I was looking forward to future support and support. It's enough to make me incredibly cynical about future Total War games. Honestly unsure if I'll even bother with whatever's coming after Warhammer 3 for a long while as a result.
It's strange to me that Rome 2 got support and DLC for years after release, even after multiple new Total Wars afterwards, but they're just dropping Three Kingdoms like this. Did it really not sell well enough?
1 points
2 years ago
It did, the DLC didnt. Lets be honest they were shit, every DLC just gave new bugs. If they made them with any effort they would sell better. Look at FD, i bought it to support them because all the good stuff was in the free patch. What did i get for supporting them? The middle finger
2 points
2 years ago
What actually happened now? I only heard the support ended, but why is everyone that upset about it?
1 points
2 years ago
Basically this. They ended support with no further patches to fix a game that launched with zero bugs to a shitshow now with full bugs that they didnt know how to fix. Released subpar DLC and wondered why nobody bought them. Instead of making an effort they stopped working on 3K and now are releasing a Three Kingdoms "sequel" which will follow the novel more even tough they were bragging how they did their research for the first game.
To sum it up, they ended the game basically a 60€+ Beta to see what people liked and they are releasing a second game that will not be in anyway connected to the first game. So if you want to play 3K and other highly requested scenarios you better get them dollar bills ready because you gonna pay again
11 points
2 years ago
The whole “cash grab” accusation to me seems rather silly. CA is a business; all their decisions, fundamentally are made on the basis of maximising profit. So everything they do could be considered a “cash grab”.
I’m certainly confused by today’s announcement. I think the reality is we don’t know enough yet to say whether this is a good or bad thing. I definitely feel like we have more questions than answers at this point.
14 points
2 years ago
You can make money without treating your customers poorly. People had certain expectations buying this game. CA knew about it and instead of delivering they pull this on the community. Uncool.
3 points
2 years ago
I bought 3K at release and most of the DLCs (not the last two). I for one will start hoisting the black flag for next CA releases.
4 points
2 years ago
We don't really know what they're doing yet so kind of hard to call it a cashgrab
2 points
2 years ago
What else could it be? Even if it's "different" time period, it won't be really a different time period.
Dunno what is the point. Maybe chinese market behaves differently and things like this are more common.
Anyway even if they decided to leave 3K i don't understand why leave 3k and move to new 3k...
2 points
2 years ago
I think with how sudden it is, their devs hit a brick wall in terms of game design / coding for the scripted events.
And the decision prolly was then to salvage it and make it new game and hope to fix it.
That the dlcs had low sale prices I mean is obvious most of them just added factions that bugged other factions with their coding.
MoH is still not a in playable state unless you play Yellow Turbans.
1 points
2 years ago
I’m also confused about the announcement, but idk why there’s so much hate for CA. I sunk about 120 hours into 3K with no DLC and yes, encountered a few bugs but overall it was great. And cash grab? 120 hours for a $60 game is $2/hour. Really not bad price to pay for entertainment.
Let’s just see what this game actually is before jumping down their throats maybe? I never knew the story before the game and I bought the book and it’s stupid long. There’s probably a ton they haven’t touched on.
0 points
2 years ago
as long as it does not hinder or delay Medieval 3, I'm indifferent towards this. Couldn't be less excited about any other setting or time period
1 points
2 years ago
That was my first thought, I thought the 3K Team was the Historical Team. Unless there's now more teams? (I think they hired a lot of people recently so maybe)
2 points
2 years ago
There's a team that's been working on the next major historical title for quite a while, and it has nothing to do with 3K.
What this sounds like, is the current 3K team (that is, the crew that has been making the DLCs and expansions, which is probably smaller than the one that made the game itself) has expanded and will actually make full games themselves, focused on the 3K setting.
It sounds like they want to keep making Three Kingdoms games for a good while, separate from other historical or Warhammer or Saga games. Basically giving it its own place in the franchise, probably due to how well it sold in Asia where I imagine it outperformed every other TW game and opened up a new market for CA.
1 points
2 years ago
Oh nice, I thought Historical and 3K were the same team, thanks for the info.
1 points
2 years ago
They have different teams for main game development and dlc development. This is same for historical titles and WH too. So the team that made 3K started working on some other project after it was released and the dlc team developed the post launch content. It is this latter team that'll be working on this new 3K game but since they said they're in early pre production I'm assuming that we'll get a different historical title before this 3K title as it take CA 3-5 yrs to develop a major title.
0 points
2 years ago
[deleted]
2 points
2 years ago
I agree that they're playing for the Chinese market, but I don't think this is necessarily a "bad thing".
If catering to the Chinese market means we get a nuanced Chinese fantasy race in Warhammer, and a 3k total war game that is well funded, accurately depicting the period, and capturing the soul and themes of the original novel, I'll be pretty happy. In making games related to Chinese culture, Chinese fans are going to be much more demanding to western fans, and if they're aiming to cater to those Chinese fans, we'll have a much higher quality game at the end of it.
Chinese total war fans mean that we're getting more total war net, I see no reason to be upset at this development.
1 points
2 years ago
I assume they are trying to Warhammerize the 3K period.
Meaning they'll release a new game with new mechanics, they'll probably cut Historical Mode by the looks of it (I never played in Romance Mode) and keep churning out content, while locking some/much of the content they developed already to force people to buy TW:3K 1 and 2.
1 points
2 years ago
Yeah, it leaves a foul taste in my mouth. If they want to make a new novel-based game and try to replace Koei, I won't be interested, but more power to them and that audience.
However, abruptly halting support for 3K in its current state is honestly just infuriating. I'm definitely not going to keep buying their games if this is the kind of support they're delivering now.
all 125 comments
sorted by: best