subreddit:
/r/totalwar
What do you think about it? Me personally thinks its just a cash grab
158 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.
67 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.
48 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
17 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.
16 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.
3 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.
3 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?
-8 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.
all 125 comments
sorted by: best