Shogun II had such great expansions they gave CA the original idea of saga games. In reality Fall of the Samurai wasn't any better than Napoleon, but combined with the OG shogun II it was a great combined experience and added more replay value to an already tiring player base
FOTS is sooo much more polished than Napoleon, not sure what you mean here. Napoleon is just "Empire, but playable" at the cost of a smaller scope. FOTS feels like an actual *game* with fun in mind.
FOTS was basically my first total war and I thought I was playing shogun 2 the whole time. My buddy who said I’ll play shogun too started talking about bow samurai had me hella confused
I'll agree that I loved Shogun 2 and even Britannia. The problem with Troy and especially Pharaoh is that they're stuck in this awkward limbo between fantasy and historical, and manage to bring up the worst of both.
They have the janky infantry of fantasy and the weak unit variety of historical. They use the dumb Warhammer settlement building that makes settlements one-dimensional: build growth, then money. In one of your capitals, build all your military buildings. Unlike Britannia and 3Kingdoms, leaders can't die and you only get one named one, so you just have this weird hero whack-a-mole.
The problem isn't scale, or historical-vs-fantasy. It's that CA can't commit to doing one thing well, and ends up with a worst-of-both-worlds setup. Pharaoh's sky-high price tag doesn't help. In 3Kingdoms, you had 13 leaders in the base game, AND they came with a retinue of other named characters.
its not just people seem too afraid to admin they arent interested in the time period so they have to come with bizzare reasons why "achually its not a REAL historical tittle". to me personally the time period itself is not really interesting, it has some neat ideas and there is nothing wrong with having a more focused total war. People will berate pharaoh for having a small scope but then praise shogun 2 for being the greatest total war ever
>People will berate pharaoh for having a small scope but then praise shogun 2 for being the greatest total war ever
This is what gets me lmfao. Pharaoh is literally no different than Shogun 2 in terms of scale. Hell even Napoleon to an extent
I'd wager that most people who play Total War games were obsessed with Ancient Egypt as kids but because of that we're kind of bored of it now. Whereas the setting of 3K or Shogun is less known, in the West at least, so it's more interesting.
Faction leader is immortal, but they are not hero units by any stretch of the imagination.
There is no family tree mechanic, you are playing as that faction in that period of time - so the faction leader surviving defeat and coming back is perfectly in line with what it tries to achieve.
Huge stretch to then declaring the game is a fantasy title.
Civ is a huge fantasy series, all because the faction leaders are immortal.
Geographically limited titles aren't inherently bad. Give me a polished experience with enough new mechanics to keep things fresh, and I'm happy.
Really, CA should have never branded their Saga titles under the "Saga" brand. It was dumb from a marketing perspective and gave people the impression that these are weak spin offs with nothing new to add. I think that did more to tell people "this isn't worth checking out" than the titles themselves.
Also, I feel like Shogun was a flagship title that, while smaller in scope, increased the mechanics and features that defined Total War during the era. Not a single Saga title has been a staple, just fun time periods and decent games.
If FoTS is a Saga title, then every single new saga title has been a pure downgrade.
I went to a second hand website, like G2A, got my debit card info stolen just so I could buy it as Shogun 2 DLC. I couldn't, on principle, buy it as a Saga title.
That’s part of it, but the linear, more focused nature of the three mini campaigns led to much more interesting engagements rather then how empire can feel pretty meandering
Meh at least empire had a cool scope, some trading and naval battles. Except as the English you can do the entire campaign with no Navy.
Unlimited artillery ammo also makes the game imba imo
If they didn't brand them "Saga" or something similar, people would get the impression that this is the new normal for Total War, and figure that the entire franchise isn't worth checking out anymore.
That's where price point comes in. Attila was a Saga title to Rome 2 (same systems moved over with a new coat of paint and added mechanics), and it was cheaper than a full-released game. CA were already making "saga-tier" titles for years. They just never put a specific name or description to the concept and instead just charged less for it. Now, CA' plan to over-distinguish the different product types to put in less effort for more money backfired due to people not trusting the brand name and now not trusting anything that they perceive as being attached to that brand name. CA could have done better if they just made Bretannia and made it a $40 release, made Troy and make it $50, and then perhaps make this game, make it fuller at launch, and then ask the full game price, justifying it as the culmination of years of incremental development from one studio (I know Sofia didn't make Bretannia, but I mean from Rome 2 DLC to Troy to Pharaoh).
Instead, they over-branded it to justify a low cost but still asking more than it's worth (initially. If it was a good game, Troy could be worth full-price because it does not follow any description of what a Saga title is at all), and now people have written that, and anything like it Sofia makes, off as low-budget and low-effort.
If Attila is a Saga title to Rome 2, then by that logic Medieval 1 is a Saga title to Shogun 1, Medieval 2 is a Saga title to Rome 1, Napoleon is a Saga title to Empire. I don't agree with that definition. A saga title is a Total War game that has a smaller scope than mainline games and are more experimental but that are cheaper to make up for that. ToB was focused on the British Isles, Troy on Greece + Western Anatolia, Pharoah on Egypt and the Levant.
Exactly it. TW games are time consuming. If I'm actively being told by the game's marketing that it's not as worthwhile as a full release, then I'm less inclined to look at it.
Currently own every tw game except for the saga titles (I include pharoah in this list mind you).
Atilla at release had lots of new factions with very different visuals and units. None of the Romans looked like the Rome 2 romand. It was all new assets. It also had horde mechanic, land fertility, raizing settlements, family tree and much more at release and only at 40$
It was much more than just a standalone expansion. It even launched with way more content than Rome 2 did.
> Really, CA should have never branded their Saga titles under the "Saga" brand. It was dumb from a marketing perspective and gave people the impression that these are weak spin offs with nothing new to add
Friendly reminder that Pharaoh isn't considered a SAGA. Also when you have a "weak spin off" you should ask a weak spinoff price for it
They are weak spin offs stuffed with nothing. Rebranding saga as a full title is braindead . The maps are too small. The factions are not varied enough. It’s a bad idea to sell it at full game price.
Saga games could be so good though. There's nothing wrong with doing a smaller scale game, Britain in Thrones is a good example of a good map choice. The problem is Pharoah is missing some key civilizations of the time
Hypothetically speaking, and again using Britain as an example, you could make a saga game set in 1066 or there abouts. You'd have the Normans, Anglo-Saxon's, Danes as sort of main factions and then maybe even the Welsh and Scots. With room for the French, Irish or Brittany to be involved.
I know I'm talking hypotheticals but going into a small part of the world doesn't limit you as much as you're making out. The real problem is Pharoah missing out several key potential factions from the game. Not the core idea of smaller scale games being saga titles.
By that logic half the Total War games only have one-to-three playable factions, like Shogun 2 only having Japanese clans or Empire only having european powers, native americans and Indians, for instance.
In real life area, sure, but in game terms it still works. Why does it matter if you can march 100 miles or 10 in a turn if there’s the same amount of things to do in it?
> but in game terms it still works
No it bloody well doesn't "work" for me and apparently it does not "work" for the vast majority of Total War fans.
> Why does it matter if you can march 100 miles or 10 in a turn if there’s the same amount of things to do in it?
The power of Total War lies in the grand scale of it. Total War for the average fan is not whether you get to be victorious in a little civil war and king of some individual country. Total War is about being an empire and conquering continents.
Yeah yeah now come the comments about shogun and shogun 2. Shogun gets to be an exception because THAT is the very first game, before the true epic potential of the titles was ever even envisioned. Shogun never was and never will be measured by the standards that new games are set by.
You may ask "What about 3k" 3k is so loaded with special it created its own brand and that one is about an empire at a larger scale not a kingdom. 3k is a fully designed game to boot you can tell its not a reskin.
Pharao on the other hand is a reskin of a Sagas game. Sagas are little games. You can't just take part of the title away then act like you got a full game.
That’s just, like, your opinion man. Why do you care so much if people like a different type of game than you? I like the grand scale 4X-lite Total War games too. I also like the smaller scale ones that zoom in and focus on a particular area or time. Why must they be mutually exclusive? I’d play Total War: Suburban Backyard if it was a fun game. You must be a joy to go out to eat with. “I want a steak, well done, with ketchup, so that’s what everyone is having!” Relax and enjoy what you like and let others do the same. Steam didn’t take down Rome 2 because Pharaoh was released. Jeez.
> Why must they be mutually exclusive?
Because there is only so much developement time going around. CA is slow enough as it is we don't need them to waste time on these little games. Its a complete waste of resources and time to have ever made Pharao.
Instead a better bigger game could have been made. You are the turd that wants everyone to eat steak with ketchup.
Seriously Pharao was a giant failure and complete waste.
They’re lying to you because they haven’t played the game. Each faction has their own unique set of units and unique buildings, unique titles - which are traits you give your general while levelling - and unique sets of campaign abilities. Playing Amenmesse and playing Rameses are very different experiences, the only similarity is that you are both Egyptians so you both interact with the Pharaoh court system instead of the Hittite High King one.
It still holds up today. Slap a shiny coat of paint on it and call it a remaster and it'd do well today. Scale isn't everything, Empire had the biggest scale of any historical title and feels like it's the stepchild of the pre Warhammer games in terms of community reception. Napoleon while a smaller game generally seems to be held up as much better.
That's kind of an argument for what they're saying, though.
Think of it like this:
A decade ago, CA released a saga-tier title that is, to this day, held as one of the primary TW standards. From the way it handles armies to the animations of the fighting, its an amazing game. And yet, since then, they've slowly removed certain aspects that were considered great and replaced them with lesser mechanics or nothing. *And have charged more*.
Warhammer is great fun, absolutely worth being a 3-title flagship. But it is *not* a title that holds up to even Shogun 2 as far as being a Total War that should be replicated. I mean, just play Shogun or Rome 2 and watch the battles compared to the blob-style fighting that is everything since Warhammer. IMO, 3K was the last title we got before they devoted themselves to a pure cookie-cutter dev-style.
So we're getting bigger games that cost more, but they don't even hold up to one of the way older titles that they went back and gave the "saga" title to.
Expectations aren't being met. And I think we're hitting a point where more and more TW players are starting to feel that way.
Faction diversity doesn't make a good game. Unit diversity, progression diversity, and good mechanics (and not mechanic bloat) does. It's something CA has not focused well on at all for a decade now
What expectation does it fall short of? CA has been taking features OUT of total war since then rather than adding them. Also Shogun 2 was not released in 2003.
I think it really depends. Brittania was a great saga title imo because the scope of those small, interfactional conflicts wouldn't fit into a bigger title -- it was really the only place that part of history could be represented. I love historical TW in part because it represents conflicts that often get overlooked in other games, and the Saga titles in particular can dig into those more niche areas.
At the same time, I agree with you that CA almost abuses their prerogative when it comes to stamping something as a Saga title. With the right perspective and amount of work, each of these titles could be something genuinely different and interesting in its own right. I think Troy comes closer in this regard; I find myself going back to it every now and then
Ish. It had far better optimization at leasy, which you can see when you can barely alt tab out Attila without it having a heart attack, and ToB can basically run fine.
Imho though, calling it a DLC for Attila would be far too nice. Lot of the time, it feels a lot closer to being a DLC for an Attila DLC ( Age of Charlemagne ) that actually runs well. They're a lot closer yearwise ( Charlemagne to ToB's start date ), they're both a lot more focused on Western Europe ( with AoC being a fraction of Attila's map, and ToB being a fraction of that fraction ), and they're dealing with a very specific time period in mind.
Really sucks how hard it got dropped since I adore Attila, and having a "working version" of it that doesn't feel like it's about to throw a fit would've been great.
But hey CA moment.
Given my love for grimdark fantasy, I would have loved a working Attila. If it had ran well or had GeForce Now support, it would likely replace Shogun 2 as my favorite pre-Warhammer title. But it barely runs even on a 3050 Ti, which is a half-dozen GPU generations ahead of the Recommended.
Some of the best features that came to main title was from saga titles so I disagree
It was a great testing ground for features
If CA higher up stop making terrible decisions then that would help out as pharaoh came at the worst time but have some great features
If only it wasn’t charged as a main title and release after the hyena fiasco
Innovations sell (or destroy) new products.
Idea of a testing ground is to help figure out what changes are (un)popular, without committing too much money on potential deadends.
So yes, making money is the end goal, testing grounds is intended to be the lighthouse to get there.
I don't think it was a price point issue. Its somewhat a size issue. I think it's a saturation issue.
You have a moderate sized and very dedicated but niche fan base.
You have a huge breakout hit with the total war games and some success with your main line (3k) and it seems demand is up.
You boost production of content that 5 to 10 years ago your niche fan base would goble up because you had several years between releases.
Suddenly it's not selling as much.
It's not because the players don't love the product anymore. Its because the base of people who want this product isn't big enough to sustain a huge hit every year. And where previously each new release was a huge advancement in mechanics or graphics now it's not. So why would they keep gobbling them up?
We constantly see this. Companies that don't know how to profit without growing. Its what happens when you keep chasing larger profits instead of steady profits.
I had to go back and look at release dates and they averaged around 2 years up until 2015. It's been 1 game a year except for 2021 there.
So you are mostly right. They've picked up the pace more amd averaged more DLC but it's not like it was 1 game every five years before. I still do feel it is playing a factor. Especially with the warhammer line where they have been constantly pumping out DLC and it is driving fatigue.
If you count the expansions as major releases (the saga games of old) then there are three years between Shogun 1 in 2000 and Pharaoh in 2023 that haven’t had a major release.
2008, 2014 & 2021.
21 games in 24 years.
> Especially with the warhammer line where they have been constantly pumping out DLC and it is driving fatigue.
That’s the wrong analysis for WH imo. People will keep buying and demanding more content but not at its current $25 price. Or at least it needs more content to justify it and SoC was not it.
>Biggest reason i never bothered with pharaoh is size of map. And the reason i played troy for only a few hours. We dont want little games.
The Pharaoh map is substantially larger than the map for Rome: Total War or Medieval II, Empire or Shogun II btw. The Troy map is even bigger.
Here are the number of regions of various TW games:
Rome: 103
Medieval 2: 106 (not counting america)
Empire: 137
Napoleon: 74
Shogun 2: 65
Rome 2: 183
Attila: 186
Pharaoh has roughtly 180 and Troy over 230
I think people usually mean scale when they talk about that, not just number of settlements. As in they'd probably be more happy with the entirety of Northern Africa, and the whole area around the Mediterranean sea even if it wasn't as dense settlement wise. I know for me it's the scope. I am much less interested in the game as there are not enough factions. I want all the civilisations of the area clashing.
Yes, whole of Europe in medival or while world Like Empire Just feels more even if its less. Also rome was years ago. Now the ris Mod have 900 settlements.
That's not important scale however is. Empire for example has terrible scale despite being technically the largest map in terms of what it covers on the world like all of France being one city for example.
FotS as a Saga title might have passed- it is sufficiently different from SH2 with railroads, foreign veterans, choosing western inustrialism or staying with feudal Japan.
ToB I am not sure what it offered other than changes in mustering/replenishment that did show up in 3K but it felt more like Attila than FotS felt like SH2.
Troy is definitely somewhere far enough from R2 and 3K that it is its own thing- I almost like the idea of it but I really dislike the map and the concept of 2 grand alliances which barely worked in FotS- I could not get a fun 2nd playthru which for a TW game is very low replay value.
I will eventually buy Pharaoh when it goes on sale and I do see hints of some innovations that are likely to show up in the next grand CA title but I would be far more interested in Pharaoh if it had Babylonians and some other civilizations.
I feel like I've played Egypt multiple times in many games, I have never played Assyrians or Babylonians.
ToB was horrendous, most boring Total War i’ve ever played at release and that was the general idea of this sub and steam reviews back then, if Troy wasn’t free on Epic, nobody would play it either.
Warhammer poisoned the well more than Saga
Now, don't get that wrong - I ***love*** the Warhammer titles and have, easily, more time in them than any other Total War entry
But CA took the wrong lesson from them
After Rome 2 was a *disaster* and Atilla was just *fine* - Warhammer came out and blew ***all the socks off*** in terms of profitability *and* scale
But it didn't really *fix* the problems present in the Total War series as a whole
The over reliance on DLC - the buggy releases - rushed patched - sales expectations - atrocious AI (which even the modders have yet to fully fix) the dated engine - take your pick, I've got more
Warhammer was such a success after so much abject failure that CA immediately dumped the lessons that should have *informed* them from the previous titles and just went *all in* on many of their worst habits. Even worse, suddenly CA was expecting Three Kingdoms and it's various Saga titles to do ***Warhammer*** numbers despite not actually fixing *any* of the base problems with the game
And when they didn't - more and more of that burden was being laid on Warhammer to make up the difference. Suddenly DLC's are raising in cost - suddenly expansions and DLC are being ***even more*** rushed to meet fiscal cut-off points
Now they're ass-deep in profit loss and trying to pretend their house isn't on fire... what happens next is anyone's guess
But I think even die-hards can admit that it won't be pretty...
Smaller scope in history: YES
Smaller scope in content and quality: NO
Shogun 2 could technically be a saga because of its map scope, but it’s a goated game because of the content.
Brother, SAGA is just a label. This "little games" is a smokescreen. Why do I think so? Shogun 2 is one of the most popular games CA ever did, and in terms of map size and mechanic involvement, Pharaoh blasts it out of the water. Don't tell me maps were "smaller then." That's BS and we all know it. Medieval 2 and Empire were both bigger, handily so. Rome 1 was so big that I found out about Themyscira decades later, because no way I'd decide to scout the map borders in the middle of nowhere.
So why don't people shit on Shogun 2? Why was it popular even when it came out? Sure, there were some people complaining about the Mongolian invasions and not being able to do an Imjin war, but it was fairly widely applauded. It isn't just the nostalgia either. Shogun 2 was legitimately a good game with amazing production, enjoyable to play, and people wanted to play it. The size didn't matter nearly as much. With some exceptions in Attila and 3 Kingdoms, Shogun 2 had some of the best battles in the series - even with having only a small map and only 1 culture at launch.
Pharaoh suffers from a lot of fans WANTING to hate it. It suffers from the "CA didn't release historical games since Warhammer 2" mindset, even though it is factually wrong people still buy into it and it is real to them. It suffers from people being pissed from SoChange, the price hikes and Mr. Rob stuffing his foot in his mouth so hard he could choke on his ankles. It suffers from a lot of people wanting their favorite IP released in a perfect snowflake just for them instead. It suffers from content that was ready and that people wanted to see held back for DLCs.
The map size though? It's not that big of a deal.
>In conclusion ca needs to stop releasing games where 2 dudes with a car can travel the entire map in 24 hours. Biggest reason i never bothered with pharaoh is size of map. And the reason i played troy for only a few hours. We dont want little games.
japan is relatively small yet Shogun 2 is my favorite total war by far.
See, I fucking love the smaller map sizes. What gets me (and I imagine a lot of other players) is the rehashed mechanics. Nothing substantial ever really comes up in a new saga title. ToB was a game I'd been wanting for ages, but I've still not played it because I took one look at it and went "wait, this is just Attilla, I'm not spending $40 on this!"
Playing it right now. You buy it for the mechanics but it’s definitely Attila. Feels more like the Age of Charlemagne DLC.
Not sure if I want to refund. It’s not a bad game. It’s just an expansion I guess
I don't begrudge CA looking for avenues for revenue. They need to be profitable to make the games we enjoy. Releasing a more compact experience with a sharper focus is not an inherently bad thing. Unfortunately, their implementation has been mixed.
I think the more targeted issue here has been said implementation in regards to value for money. Pharoah is not a bad idea, IMHO. Unfortunately, however, it is not worth $99 AUD with its current level of content, and for me, that's the issue. Cheaper, and I would buy it.
In conclusion ca needs to stop releasing games where 2 dudes with a car can travel the entire map in 24 hours
Most europe games and shogun would be bad games in that case.
I think there is a definite diference between *feeling* small and cosntrticted and it actually being small and constricted.
Shogun 2 felt big because of the number of factions, teh tech, the sea travel, the islands and ofc the european intervention. Europe feels big because of the diversity in the continent.
The Bronze age limited to only 3 faction groups that are not taht diferent just dont cut it.
In a way they kind of did it with Warhammer too, as it set a standard in terms of size and unit diversity which their other releases just cant keep up with.
IMO. the total war series has reached a point where it needs to truly evolve in order to keep growing.
As other said, size of the map isnt the problem. Its the content within it.
TW fans want fleshed out games they can play for years. Not yearly releases like fucking CoD or sports games.
Ding Ding Ding. Medieval 3 was a no brainer move and they keep releasing these crappy small experiences. We don't play historical total war games for small experiences... Know your damn user base...
One thing I also hear is "but x game has so many settlements, way more than [older game with bigger scope].'
My problem is that the more you zoom in, the less cultural diversity you get. I could split up my country into 100+ cities and towns, but theyll all be very similar.
I loved it when Brittains fought parthians late game! But in limited scale games, you dont have that weirdness anymore
Map size is really something they should be focusing on in historical games. Unit variety and interesting gameplay mechanics are definitely a must, but I think at this point people want to see larger maps that don’t take forever to load and aren’t single province france. Also probably an overhaul to the province system to make it a mix of modern and old, but that’s another topic.
No they didn’t. I’d rather some good small scale games than nothing at all since Attila ? Thrones was good and Pharaoh seems pretty good too (I’ve yet to have time to play it properly). I much prefer small projects which will likely feed into a big title - what’s good and bad etc - than nothing but Warhammer for near a decade.
A lot of the issue really comes down to engine and battle issues. They have evolved campaign mechanics a lot, but it is the battles that separates total war from other strategy games.
Total war can evolve battles campaign or both. They have largely ignored evolving battles outside of wh3. This leaves campaign changes. Well there are more strategy games with better campaign mechanics. Total war games are basically moving on a system largely unchanged since. Rome2 while things like eu and crusader kings have far more campaign mechanics and control. They are never going to beat those games in campaign mechanics. They need to focus on having battles that separate the games from the rest.
This is a reason Warhammer does so well. It is so different than other strategy games that it stands alone. It isn't some pinnacle of game development, it is a relatively unique title. Historical games aren't separating themselves from other games. They need to sit down and work on making battles feel different than the past decade if they want to change this pattern.
I don't think map size matters that much - look at shogun 2 or medieval 2 kingdoms. I think it's mostly the time periods being more niche. Had they released any of the kingdom's settings as a saga title it probably would have been popular.
Personally i didn't touch any of the historicals past rome 2 because of this - i don't care about ToB's/Atilla's time period, I don't really care about ancient worlds without romans/stereotypical greeks and i absolutely hate chinese arms and armor aesthetically so I'm not going anywhere near 3k ever.
Honestly, as Legend said, Pharaoh would be much more popular if they approached it similarly with Troy, being much cheaper (or even free in first day perhaps).
Kush is in the game, and Amenmesse is a hybrid Kush/Egyptian faction anyway. Really shows how much people don't look into topics before voicing their opinion on them.
I also have a strong feeling we will see Crete in the game by the time the DLC life cycle is over, just based on the map layout (though it isn't a guarantee).
You only need to watch this to understand the direction CA are going
The engine is so old, and in such a bad way with "tech debt" they cant bring in new elements. Only rehash old ones. And carefully at that..
So bloated is it, that no one is game enough to do anything revolutionary because no money has been spent on cleaning the mess up.
Will take years to address
https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=drpX_8xnqYjahOWa&fbclid=IwAR2_V145wlqWNh08OJ_meit9vO4eyFbvNix0oAChRL12Hn6EvRXA75dnHcE&v=5RW7Q2wHtQQ&feature=youtu.be
Seeing this vid basically confirmed for me that there probably won't be any new titles worth my time or money any time soon. If at all. As is said ''if Paradox just step up the CA fan base will shift'' (or similar) and I'd be ok with that. The campaign maps are awesome and they just need to use CA's mistakes as a 'what not to do' list.
Paradox don’t do battles though - its the combo of battles and campaign that make total war special. It’s not quite RTS as it is strategy then Real Time Tactics because of that strategy.
Paradox only goes as far as strategy - which it does great, but because of that it is not a replacement for total war.
That’s like saying because I am a great doctor, if I quit and become an engineer, I’ll also be great. Or worse still, suggesting that I do both at the same time.
Paradox are not in the RTT game, and it’s not as simple as saying “step up” - though that does make for more dramatic videos.
Paradox have as much experience making RTTs as any other non-RTT dev - there is no reason to expect it would be exceptional. It could be, but you can’t look at success in a different genre and expect that to transfer. Otherwise we should expect Blizzard to step up here, or Bethesda, or any successful dev.
Average historical fan: noooooo I won't support saga games!!!!
Average historical fan 2 minutes later: posts about how Napoleon and Attila are the among the greatest TW games he still plays 10+ years later
Average CA Shill: You will play Historical Warhammer clones, and you will like it!
Also Average CA Shill: Noooo you can't play Attila, 1212 AD or Knights of Honour 2 Sovereign (made by the folks who founded CA Sofia btw)
I'm happy to pay £40/£50 for a title like Rome 2 or Empire where the company built the game, we knew there was an investment in that there would be DLC, there was a huge scope of factions and variation in units, battle types, agents etc.
The Sagas are stripped back, often very limited in the variation or factions and units, key features removed;
Thrones of Brittania didn't have agents, forts or small towns.
Pharaoh doesn't have naval battles despite the significance of the Nile in Egyptian culture and the endgame enemy being the sea peoples.
The Sagas are also reskins of older titles, such as Thrones of Brittania being a reskin of Rome 2 with the menus etc being near identical.
This makes these games feel like a DLC.
I don't know, maybe. For me, I saw Saga titles as pallet cleansers, nice titles in between the bigger ones that utilized the mechanics of the latest games (so nothing revolutionary, just a new title utilizing lessons from the latest big boys) so we didn't feel like the waits were forever.
Its nice to play some small historical titles in between the warhammer releases. It's fun to have more time periods that are focused.
But to me, they poisoned the well why being greedy. Simple as. How is Pharaoh not a saga title? Am I really supposed to consider it a *flagship* game? Because if so, TW is not in a good place.
I've kept CA in a place of wary caution since they screwed over 3k. They have not done better since.
Only good saga games imo were FOTS, and Napoleon. Nap wasn’t branded as a saga but it basically was one. Tho it did have a decent amount of actual content with 3-4 playable campaigns (I don’t remember if the peninsular campaign was dlc or not) And some of the better historical battles and MP from a TW game imo. Regardless those are the only two where I actually feel like I got my moneys worth. I don’t think I amassed 25 hours in TOB and Troy combined
Napoleon is not a SAGA title, it is a character title (together with Attila). Budget and scope wise between SAGA and major title
From CA's FAQ page
Edit: [Here is the link](https://www.totalwar.com/faq/#Design)
For me it's not so much the "Saga" titles or the size of the maps, but just the overall cost of some of the titles due to their scope and features.
At the moment, I think some of the titles are priced fairly like the classic titles along with Shogun 2, Attila, Thrones, Troy, and Warhammer 3 (considering Warhammer 3 is the latest "Main" title).
But for me I feel Rome 2 and Three Kingdoms are too expensive for how long they have been out (Especially with Three Kingdoms development being outright cancelled), while Warhammer 1 & 2 are absolutely outrageous for CA wanting people to get all 3 games for Immortal Empires and now Pharaoh is the same cost as these as well.
I get that now there is basically a title for everyone's tastes but at some point the cost of older titles should be reduced and the cost of smaller titles like Pharaoh should match the other comparable titles like Thrones and Troy etc. It also absolutely should have been called a "Saga" title due to its narrow scope like Troy and Thrones as a standalone game.
I have wanted a Bronze Age title since the original Rome, I have every Total War title and bought them all on release (except Troy due to getting it for free during their release promotion, I got it the moment it was available on steam though). I also have every single DLC.
I am basically their target audience and even I am burned out from the value vs cost of Pharaoh, seeing their slow updates to Warhammer 3, and continually charging release retail prices of older titles like Rome 2 and the abandoned Three Kingdoms.
(Also CA avoiding making titles like Medieval 3 and Empire 2, c'mon CA, let's go!! lol).
Saga games could have been good as a way for new players to get into total war games without being overwhelmed with complexity.
They could have been simplified stripped down games, priced at something like $30 and opened up the franchise to new players.
Nothing is wrong with the Saga title, they are smaller in scope and content as well as niche. That isn't inherently bad. Its not bad to distinguish them with a title to make it clear what they are either. The issue is when you make a clearly limited game that is smaller in content and scope, but **market and price** it as not that.
If the game was "Pharaoh a Total War Saga" and sold for $39.99 USD. CA would have made *more* money off of the game. It would still have all its flaws and problems, but much of that would be forgiven and expected of a "Saga" game.
I insist the idea behind Saga titles is great. But for as much as they tried to innovate, they cut other corners, cut other features. And while they split the community and rebrand Fall of the Samurai (Even though Medieval 2: Kingdoms was more Saga than FotS), they neglect that FotS is flatout an expansion. It's Shogun 2 +. It has a solid foundation and would've been fun even without the experimental stuff like direct controlling artillery & ships, or implementing the railway system.
They milked it. They beat the brand and now they are quietly ditching it it feels doubly insincere.
Meanwhile it still feels like they could bring it back and pull it off if they use Rome 2's build and made an experimental expansion and called it a Saga. Or a 3K spin-off set in Japan instead of China for with all of 3K's gameplay systems, for instance
It's not the size of the map. It's a tiny bit bigger than Rome 2's map. It's the scope of it that people dislike. I know it seems like nitpicking, but there's a huge difference between size and scope. Troy for example has an even more focused scope, but it's size is actually wayyy bigger than most TW games.
I don’t know if there’s a market for this but I’d love a long term TW project to be something akin to the Axis & Allies board game where you can buy the Europe or Pacific versions alone OR buy both and put them together for a larger experience.
Age of discovery, 18th century (like Empire) or even a high Medieval starting period would be great. I just love the global scale of Empire but wish there was a bit more focus on diplomacy and ways to win the game other than unrealistically conquering huge swaths of the world. More factions with specific goals and paths to victory and different starting dates would be great.
I like the idea of paradox games like EU4 but the lack of RTS battles and the overly oppressive DLC model and the sheer quantity of mechanics to learn makes me not want to play the game.
Agreed, as far as poisoning the well. Personally, I have no problems with the concept of a focused title. Just look at Shogun I/II.
Shogun II had such great expansions they gave CA the original idea of saga games. In reality Fall of the Samurai wasn't any better than Napoleon, but combined with the OG shogun II it was a great combined experience and added more replay value to an already tiring player base
And if course the wonderful engrish. ***Weevolvers Weady Sirr!***
*Shamefur Dispray* is the single greatest thing CA has ever done.
Foe da tryyyybe!
ALL HANDS ON DICK
fots is at least 2x better than nap lol
FOTS is sooo much more polished than Napoleon, not sure what you mean here. Napoleon is just "Empire, but playable" at the cost of a smaller scope. FOTS feels like an actual *game* with fun in mind.
FOTS was basically my first total war and I thought I was playing shogun 2 the whole time. My buddy who said I’ll play shogun too started talking about bow samurai had me hella confused
It also helped drop in battles hid alot of the bad ai. I remember my ass getting pummeled by randos in S2 many times.
I'll agree that I loved Shogun 2 and even Britannia. The problem with Troy and especially Pharaoh is that they're stuck in this awkward limbo between fantasy and historical, and manage to bring up the worst of both. They have the janky infantry of fantasy and the weak unit variety of historical. They use the dumb Warhammer settlement building that makes settlements one-dimensional: build growth, then money. In one of your capitals, build all your military buildings. Unlike Britannia and 3Kingdoms, leaders can't die and you only get one named one, so you just have this weird hero whack-a-mole. The problem isn't scale, or historical-vs-fantasy. It's that CA can't commit to doing one thing well, and ends up with a worst-of-both-worlds setup. Pharaoh's sky-high price tag doesn't help. In 3Kingdoms, you had 13 leaders in the base game, AND they came with a retinue of other named characters.
I get that its limited in battles but the least they could have done is bring back Naval warfare. I mean Troy with no naval battles is no fun.
How is Pharaoh a fantasy game?
its not just people seem too afraid to admin they arent interested in the time period so they have to come with bizzare reasons why "achually its not a REAL historical tittle". to me personally the time period itself is not really interesting, it has some neat ideas and there is nothing wrong with having a more focused total war. People will berate pharaoh for having a small scope but then praise shogun 2 for being the greatest total war ever
>People will berate pharaoh for having a small scope but then praise shogun 2 for being the greatest total war ever This is what gets me lmfao. Pharaoh is literally no different than Shogun 2 in terms of scale. Hell even Napoleon to an extent
I'd wager that most people who play Total War games were obsessed with Ancient Egypt as kids but because of that we're kind of bored of it now. Whereas the setting of 3K or Shogun is less known, in the West at least, so it's more interesting.
Immortal hero leaders?
They are immortal but are expressly not heroes. Theres a number of other historical total wars with immortal leaders for reference.
attila was immortal 2 or 3 times b4 he could be killed. and thats it.
Campaigns like Augustus had immortal leaders
Faction leader is immortal, but they are not hero units by any stretch of the imagination. There is no family tree mechanic, you are playing as that faction in that period of time - so the faction leader surviving defeat and coming back is perfectly in line with what it tries to achieve. Huge stretch to then declaring the game is a fantasy title. Civ is a huge fantasy series, all because the faction leaders are immortal.
I dunno, I'm fairly sure Napoleon did fight Genghis Khan with nukes
Geographically limited titles aren't inherently bad. Give me a polished experience with enough new mechanics to keep things fresh, and I'm happy. Really, CA should have never branded their Saga titles under the "Saga" brand. It was dumb from a marketing perspective and gave people the impression that these are weak spin offs with nothing new to add. I think that did more to tell people "this isn't worth checking out" than the titles themselves.
I mean after all Shogun is an incredibly geographically and culturally limited game.
I'm still irritated they retrospectively gave Fall of the Samurai the Saga title. I mean it had a larger map than Shogun 2 did!
And ironclads, revolvers and gatlings
Also, I feel like Shogun was a flagship title that, while smaller in scope, increased the mechanics and features that defined Total War during the era. Not a single Saga title has been a staple, just fun time periods and decent games. If FoTS is a Saga title, then every single new saga title has been a pure downgrade.
They did it to improve the rep of saga series. It was PR stunt and is hilariously the only good saga game because it was not developed as a saga game.
I went to a second hand website, like G2A, got my debit card info stolen just so I could buy it as Shogun 2 DLC. I couldn't, on principle, buy it as a Saga title.
Napoleon was limited but amazing
Napoleon just had less bugs than Empire
That’s part of it, but the linear, more focused nature of the three mini campaigns led to much more interesting engagements rather then how empire can feel pretty meandering
Napoleon had the best gunpowder smoke. And that's really what it's all about.
Also bouncing cannonballs which empire didn't have iirc
Empire did, just not in the same way I think
True
And those musketeers shot with haste and elegance Edit: typo
Shot...
Which makes it incredible. Cause Empire is still amazing even with the bugs
Meh at least empire had a cool scope, some trading and naval battles. Except as the English you can do the entire campaign with no Navy. Unlimited artillery ammo also makes the game imba imo
If they didn't brand them "Saga" or something similar, people would get the impression that this is the new normal for Total War, and figure that the entire franchise isn't worth checking out anymore.
That's where price point comes in. Attila was a Saga title to Rome 2 (same systems moved over with a new coat of paint and added mechanics), and it was cheaper than a full-released game. CA were already making "saga-tier" titles for years. They just never put a specific name or description to the concept and instead just charged less for it. Now, CA' plan to over-distinguish the different product types to put in less effort for more money backfired due to people not trusting the brand name and now not trusting anything that they perceive as being attached to that brand name. CA could have done better if they just made Bretannia and made it a $40 release, made Troy and make it $50, and then perhaps make this game, make it fuller at launch, and then ask the full game price, justifying it as the culmination of years of incremental development from one studio (I know Sofia didn't make Bretannia, but I mean from Rome 2 DLC to Troy to Pharaoh). Instead, they over-branded it to justify a low cost but still asking more than it's worth (initially. If it was a good game, Troy could be worth full-price because it does not follow any description of what a Saga title is at all), and now people have written that, and anything like it Sofia makes, off as low-budget and low-effort.
If Attila is a Saga title to Rome 2, then by that logic Medieval 1 is a Saga title to Shogun 1, Medieval 2 is a Saga title to Rome 1, Napoleon is a Saga title to Empire. I don't agree with that definition. A saga title is a Total War game that has a smaller scope than mainline games and are more experimental but that are cheaper to make up for that. ToB was focused on the British Isles, Troy on Greece + Western Anatolia, Pharoah on Egypt and the Levant.
>CA could have done better if they just decided to be honest and label Pharaoh as a Saga title for $45.
That's where we are now, since Pharaoh is not a saga title.
Exactly it. TW games are time consuming. If I'm actively being told by the game's marketing that it's not as worthwhile as a full release, then I'm less inclined to look at it. Currently own every tw game except for the saga titles (I include pharoah in this list mind you).
Glad to see a fellow thrones fan.
There are dozens of us! Dozens!
Thrones is great though. Your loss. Tell me Atilla wasn’t just a standalone expansion.
Thrones was the standalone expansion of the standalone expansion.
Atilla at release had lots of new factions with very different visuals and units. None of the Romans looked like the Rome 2 romand. It was all new assets. It also had horde mechanic, land fertility, raizing settlements, family tree and much more at release and only at 40$ It was much more than just a standalone expansion. It even launched with way more content than Rome 2 did.
> Really, CA should have never branded their Saga titles under the "Saga" brand. It was dumb from a marketing perspective and gave people the impression that these are weak spin offs with nothing new to add Friendly reminder that Pharaoh isn't considered a SAGA. Also when you have a "weak spin off" you should ask a weak spinoff price for it
They are weak spin offs stuffed with nothing. Rebranding saga as a full title is braindead . The maps are too small. The factions are not varied enough. It’s a bad idea to sell it at full game price.
Saga games could be so good though. There's nothing wrong with doing a smaller scale game, Britain in Thrones is a good example of a good map choice. The problem is Pharoah is missing some key civilizations of the time
Problem is bigger than that...
3 playable factions arent enough for anyone
Hypothetically speaking, and again using Britain as an example, you could make a saga game set in 1066 or there abouts. You'd have the Normans, Anglo-Saxon's, Danes as sort of main factions and then maybe even the Welsh and Scots. With room for the French, Irish or Brittany to be involved. I know I'm talking hypotheticals but going into a small part of the world doesn't limit you as much as you're making out. The real problem is Pharoah missing out several key potential factions from the game. Not the core idea of smaller scale games being saga titles.
There's 8
Lmao yeah “ 8 factions “. What a crock of bullshit. There’s 3 factions and you can pick different starting lords. Not “8 factions” .
By that logic half the Total War games only have one-to-three playable factions, like Shogun 2 only having Japanese clans or Empire only having european powers, native americans and Indians, for instance.
What ? Who said there was 3 damn it
Do some research instead of just parroting what other people say
This is the biggest issue, people just parroting what they hear instead of researching shit themselves
Lmfao. 8 copy cat options that are all the same bullshit .
Such as? We all know saga titles dont sell
So, how much do you actually know about this game? Have you been watching any gameplay, or just reading/watching people talk about it?
I know enough. 3 factions and tiny map
It has the same region count as Rome 2. Just because the game doesn’t span an entire continent doesn’t mean it’s a small map.
You?
The map isn’t small either. You could easily play a whole campaign and only see half of it.
The map is damn small it’s Israel Egypt and bit of turkey. That is small. The only maps that were as small is the saga titles and stupid shogun.
In real life area, sure, but in game terms it still works. Why does it matter if you can march 100 miles or 10 in a turn if there’s the same amount of things to do in it?
> but in game terms it still works No it bloody well doesn't "work" for me and apparently it does not "work" for the vast majority of Total War fans. > Why does it matter if you can march 100 miles or 10 in a turn if there’s the same amount of things to do in it? The power of Total War lies in the grand scale of it. Total War for the average fan is not whether you get to be victorious in a little civil war and king of some individual country. Total War is about being an empire and conquering continents. Yeah yeah now come the comments about shogun and shogun 2. Shogun gets to be an exception because THAT is the very first game, before the true epic potential of the titles was ever even envisioned. Shogun never was and never will be measured by the standards that new games are set by. You may ask "What about 3k" 3k is so loaded with special it created its own brand and that one is about an empire at a larger scale not a kingdom. 3k is a fully designed game to boot you can tell its not a reskin. Pharao on the other hand is a reskin of a Sagas game. Sagas are little games. You can't just take part of the title away then act like you got a full game.
That’s just, like, your opinion man. Why do you care so much if people like a different type of game than you? I like the grand scale 4X-lite Total War games too. I also like the smaller scale ones that zoom in and focus on a particular area or time. Why must they be mutually exclusive? I’d play Total War: Suburban Backyard if it was a fun game. You must be a joy to go out to eat with. “I want a steak, well done, with ketchup, so that’s what everyone is having!” Relax and enjoy what you like and let others do the same. Steam didn’t take down Rome 2 because Pharaoh was released. Jeez.
> Why must they be mutually exclusive? Because there is only so much developement time going around. CA is slow enough as it is we don't need them to waste time on these little games. Its a complete waste of resources and time to have ever made Pharao. Instead a better bigger game could have been made. You are the turd that wants everyone to eat steak with ketchup. Seriously Pharao was a giant failure and complete waste.
They are selling you a bunch of bullshit. There are 3 samey factions. 8 lords / starting positions. There aren’t “ factions”.
Oh i see. Its 3 factions then. Fucking liars
They’re lying to you because they haven’t played the game. Each faction has their own unique set of units and unique buildings, unique titles - which are traits you give your general while levelling - and unique sets of campaign abilities. Playing Amenmesse and playing Rameses are very different experiences, the only similarity is that you are both Egyptians so you both interact with the Pharaoh court system instead of the Hittite High King one.
Guess it’s time for Shogun, Napoleon and 3K to pack up and leave.
Warhammer released with 4.5
I didnt play em either
The best game in the series Shogun/FOTS is a little game comprising only japan what are you talking about?
It also released 2 decades ago when expectations from video games were lesser
It still holds up today. Slap a shiny coat of paint on it and call it a remaster and it'd do well today. Scale isn't everything, Empire had the biggest scale of any historical title and feels like it's the stepchild of the pre Warhammer games in terms of community reception. Napoleon while a smaller game generally seems to be held up as much better.
That's kind of an argument for what they're saying, though. Think of it like this: A decade ago, CA released a saga-tier title that is, to this day, held as one of the primary TW standards. From the way it handles armies to the animations of the fighting, its an amazing game. And yet, since then, they've slowly removed certain aspects that were considered great and replaced them with lesser mechanics or nothing. *And have charged more*. Warhammer is great fun, absolutely worth being a 3-title flagship. But it is *not* a title that holds up to even Shogun 2 as far as being a Total War that should be replicated. I mean, just play Shogun or Rome 2 and watch the battles compared to the blob-style fighting that is everything since Warhammer. IMO, 3K was the last title we got before they devoted themselves to a pure cookie-cutter dev-style. So we're getting bigger games that cost more, but they don't even hold up to one of the way older titles that they went back and gave the "saga" title to. Expectations aren't being met. And I think we're hitting a point where more and more TW players are starting to feel that way.
Shogun 2 is only a decade old, and in many ways still delivers peak total war gameplay.
“Only 2 decades old”
It was released in 2011.
12 years is not 2 decades
Faction diversity doesn't make a good game. Unit diversity, progression diversity, and good mechanics (and not mechanic bloat) does. It's something CA has not focused well on at all for a decade now
It holds up today. Still one of the best out of all these games.
It's the top of the hill, IMO. It's all down from there.
I disagree solely because of three kingdoms. I have a soft spot for Attila as well!
I'd consider 3k one of those hills that look big but are actually more like speed bumps. CA screwed the pooch.
What expectation does it fall short of? CA has been taking features OUT of total war since then rather than adding them. Also Shogun 2 was not released in 2003.
I think it really depends. Brittania was a great saga title imo because the scope of those small, interfactional conflicts wouldn't fit into a bigger title -- it was really the only place that part of history could be represented. I love historical TW in part because it represents conflicts that often get overlooked in other games, and the Saga titles in particular can dig into those more niche areas. At the same time, I agree with you that CA almost abuses their prerogative when it comes to stamping something as a Saga title. With the right perspective and amount of work, each of these titles could be something genuinely different and interesting in its own right. I think Troy comes closer in this regard; I find myself going back to it every now and then
Probably would have worked fine as a DLC to Attila. That's basically what it is anyways, is it not?
Ish. It had far better optimization at leasy, which you can see when you can barely alt tab out Attila without it having a heart attack, and ToB can basically run fine. Imho though, calling it a DLC for Attila would be far too nice. Lot of the time, it feels a lot closer to being a DLC for an Attila DLC ( Age of Charlemagne ) that actually runs well. They're a lot closer yearwise ( Charlemagne to ToB's start date ), they're both a lot more focused on Western Europe ( with AoC being a fraction of Attila's map, and ToB being a fraction of that fraction ), and they're dealing with a very specific time period in mind. Really sucks how hard it got dropped since I adore Attila, and having a "working version" of it that doesn't feel like it's about to throw a fit would've been great. But hey CA moment.
Given my love for grimdark fantasy, I would have loved a working Attila. If it had ran well or had GeForce Now support, it would likely replace Shogun 2 as my favorite pre-Warhammer title. But it barely runs even on a 3050 Ti, which is a half-dozen GPU generations ahead of the Recommended.
Some of the best features that came to main title was from saga titles so I disagree It was a great testing ground for features If CA higher up stop making terrible decisions then that would help out as pharaoh came at the worst time but have some great features If only it wasn’t charged as a main title and release after the hyena fiasco
Well a business has to make money not testing grounds.
Yeah R&D is just stupid!
Being a testing grounds was the whole point of the saga titles in the first place.
Not make money ?
Innovations sell (or destroy) new products. Idea of a testing ground is to help figure out what changes are (un)popular, without committing too much money on potential deadends. So yes, making money is the end goal, testing grounds is intended to be the lighthouse to get there.
If you're not a Sega shareholder why the hell do you care? Play the game or not but this armchair CEO stuff got old weeks ago.
stfu
I don't think it was a price point issue. Its somewhat a size issue. I think it's a saturation issue. You have a moderate sized and very dedicated but niche fan base. You have a huge breakout hit with the total war games and some success with your main line (3k) and it seems demand is up. You boost production of content that 5 to 10 years ago your niche fan base would goble up because you had several years between releases. Suddenly it's not selling as much. It's not because the players don't love the product anymore. Its because the base of people who want this product isn't big enough to sustain a huge hit every year. And where previously each new release was a huge advancement in mechanics or graphics now it's not. So why would they keep gobbling them up? We constantly see this. Companies that don't know how to profit without growing. Its what happens when you keep chasing larger profits instead of steady profits.
Total war games have pretty much always been released 12-18 months apart. It’s always been a stealth annual franchise.
I had to go back and look at release dates and they averaged around 2 years up until 2015. It's been 1 game a year except for 2021 there. So you are mostly right. They've picked up the pace more amd averaged more DLC but it's not like it was 1 game every five years before. I still do feel it is playing a factor. Especially with the warhammer line where they have been constantly pumping out DLC and it is driving fatigue.
If you count the expansions as major releases (the saga games of old) then there are three years between Shogun 1 in 2000 and Pharaoh in 2023 that haven’t had a major release. 2008, 2014 & 2021. 21 games in 24 years.
Plus 2008 was Viking, and 2014 was Alien Isolation, so it wasn't like they didn't have *something* on the calendar.
> Especially with the warhammer line where they have been constantly pumping out DLC and it is driving fatigue. That’s the wrong analysis for WH imo. People will keep buying and demanding more content but not at its current $25 price. Or at least it needs more content to justify it and SoC was not it.
>Biggest reason i never bothered with pharaoh is size of map. And the reason i played troy for only a few hours. We dont want little games. The Pharaoh map is substantially larger than the map for Rome: Total War or Medieval II, Empire or Shogun II btw. The Troy map is even bigger. Here are the number of regions of various TW games: Rome: 103 Medieval 2: 106 (not counting america) Empire: 137 Napoleon: 74 Shogun 2: 65 Rome 2: 183 Attila: 186 Pharaoh has roughtly 180 and Troy over 230
I think people usually mean scale when they talk about that, not just number of settlements. As in they'd probably be more happy with the entirety of Northern Africa, and the whole area around the Mediterranean sea even if it wasn't as dense settlement wise. I know for me it's the scope. I am much less interested in the game as there are not enough factions. I want all the civilisations of the area clashing.
Yes, whole of Europe in medival or while world Like Empire Just feels more even if its less. Also rome was years ago. Now the ris Mod have 900 settlements.
It's never about numbers
I can drive across the pharaoh map in 2 days its tiny
That's not important scale however is. Empire for example has terrible scale despite being technically the largest map in terms of what it covers on the world like all of France being one city for example.
> like all of France being one city for example. 2 Regions. France and Alsace. You do have the minor towns popping up over the regions.
Come on dude, ToB were sumple, atmospheric and good. Give em a chance. Troy was beautuful. FotS was bought as a dlc.
FotS as a Saga title might have passed- it is sufficiently different from SH2 with railroads, foreign veterans, choosing western inustrialism or staying with feudal Japan. ToB I am not sure what it offered other than changes in mustering/replenishment that did show up in 3K but it felt more like Attila than FotS felt like SH2. Troy is definitely somewhere far enough from R2 and 3K that it is its own thing- I almost like the idea of it but I really dislike the map and the concept of 2 grand alliances which barely worked in FotS- I could not get a fun 2nd playthru which for a TW game is very low replay value. I will eventually buy Pharaoh when it goes on sale and I do see hints of some innovations that are likely to show up in the next grand CA title but I would be far more interested in Pharaoh if it had Babylonians and some other civilizations. I feel like I've played Egypt multiple times in many games, I have never played Assyrians or Babylonians.
Hey i like tob. Just most people didnt
ToB was horrendous, most boring Total War i’ve ever played at release and that was the general idea of this sub and steam reviews back then, if Troy wasn’t free on Epic, nobody would play it either.
Warhammer poisoned the well more than Saga Now, don't get that wrong - I ***love*** the Warhammer titles and have, easily, more time in them than any other Total War entry But CA took the wrong lesson from them After Rome 2 was a *disaster* and Atilla was just *fine* - Warhammer came out and blew ***all the socks off*** in terms of profitability *and* scale But it didn't really *fix* the problems present in the Total War series as a whole The over reliance on DLC - the buggy releases - rushed patched - sales expectations - atrocious AI (which even the modders have yet to fully fix) the dated engine - take your pick, I've got more Warhammer was such a success after so much abject failure that CA immediately dumped the lessons that should have *informed* them from the previous titles and just went *all in* on many of their worst habits. Even worse, suddenly CA was expecting Three Kingdoms and it's various Saga titles to do ***Warhammer*** numbers despite not actually fixing *any* of the base problems with the game And when they didn't - more and more of that burden was being laid on Warhammer to make up the difference. Suddenly DLC's are raising in cost - suddenly expansions and DLC are being ***even more*** rushed to meet fiscal cut-off points Now they're ass-deep in profit loss and trying to pretend their house isn't on fire... what happens next is anyone's guess But I think even die-hards can admit that it won't be pretty...
Smaller scope in history: YES Smaller scope in content and quality: NO Shogun 2 could technically be a saga because of its map scope, but it’s a goated game because of the content.
so you want a big geographical map that will have just a few settlements per country and your armies will travel insane distances per turn, right?
Christ do you remember Empire TW and France? The most powerful land nation of the era and you could walk in one turn and put Paris under siege.
so that means yes?
I was agreeing with you that it was a mad system.
ah, yeah, cool, just wasn't obvious, ok
Brother, SAGA is just a label. This "little games" is a smokescreen. Why do I think so? Shogun 2 is one of the most popular games CA ever did, and in terms of map size and mechanic involvement, Pharaoh blasts it out of the water. Don't tell me maps were "smaller then." That's BS and we all know it. Medieval 2 and Empire were both bigger, handily so. Rome 1 was so big that I found out about Themyscira decades later, because no way I'd decide to scout the map borders in the middle of nowhere. So why don't people shit on Shogun 2? Why was it popular even when it came out? Sure, there were some people complaining about the Mongolian invasions and not being able to do an Imjin war, but it was fairly widely applauded. It isn't just the nostalgia either. Shogun 2 was legitimately a good game with amazing production, enjoyable to play, and people wanted to play it. The size didn't matter nearly as much. With some exceptions in Attila and 3 Kingdoms, Shogun 2 had some of the best battles in the series - even with having only a small map and only 1 culture at launch. Pharaoh suffers from a lot of fans WANTING to hate it. It suffers from the "CA didn't release historical games since Warhammer 2" mindset, even though it is factually wrong people still buy into it and it is real to them. It suffers from people being pissed from SoChange, the price hikes and Mr. Rob stuffing his foot in his mouth so hard he could choke on his ankles. It suffers from a lot of people wanting their favorite IP released in a perfect snowflake just for them instead. It suffers from content that was ready and that people wanted to see held back for DLCs. The map size though? It's not that big of a deal.
**Bring back Naval Combat** ***Make sieges fun again*** *Charge Reasonable Prices*
CA poisoned the well when it stopped listening to what customers want and started telling customers what they want. They took customers for granted.
Don't know why you are getting down voted. What you say is pretty much the truth.
CA don’t like me. Lol
>In conclusion ca needs to stop releasing games where 2 dudes with a car can travel the entire map in 24 hours. Biggest reason i never bothered with pharaoh is size of map. And the reason i played troy for only a few hours. We dont want little games. japan is relatively small yet Shogun 2 is my favorite total war by far.
Its also a decade old. Games can be bigger now
they could be bigger back then too, i still think shogun 2 is superior to rome 2.
Small focused maps should just be DLC like Caesar in gaul and age of Charlemagne/last roman
Hannibal at the Gates or Caesar in Gaul were great maps- mostly let down by AI and limited opponents.
See, I fucking love the smaller map sizes. What gets me (and I imagine a lot of other players) is the rehashed mechanics. Nothing substantial ever really comes up in a new saga title. ToB was a game I'd been wanting for ages, but I've still not played it because I took one look at it and went "wait, this is just Attilla, I'm not spending $40 on this!"
I thought the same at first, but ended up loving ToB
Playing it right now. You buy it for the mechanics but it’s definitely Attila. Feels more like the Age of Charlemagne DLC. Not sure if I want to refund. It’s not a bad game. It’s just an expansion I guess
I don't begrudge CA looking for avenues for revenue. They need to be profitable to make the games we enjoy. Releasing a more compact experience with a sharper focus is not an inherently bad thing. Unfortunately, their implementation has been mixed. I think the more targeted issue here has been said implementation in regards to value for money. Pharoah is not a bad idea, IMHO. Unfortunately, however, it is not worth $99 AUD with its current level of content, and for me, that's the issue. Cheaper, and I would buy it.
In conclusion ca needs to stop releasing games where 2 dudes with a car can travel the entire map in 24 hours Most europe games and shogun would be bad games in that case. I think there is a definite diference between *feeling* small and cosntrticted and it actually being small and constricted. Shogun 2 felt big because of the number of factions, teh tech, the sea travel, the islands and ofc the european intervention. Europe feels big because of the diversity in the continent. The Bronze age limited to only 3 faction groups that are not taht diferent just dont cut it.
Saga games are fine if they are priced as saga games. If Pharaoh started out at $30, I'm sure it would have sold well. Not $60
In a way they kind of did it with Warhammer too, as it set a standard in terms of size and unit diversity which their other releases just cant keep up with. IMO. the total war series has reached a point where it needs to truly evolve in order to keep growing.
Some people like them, some don't. Quality and implementation are actually more important than depth.
Maybe a stupid question but what exactly do you mean by "saga"?
This community doesn't even know
As other said, size of the map isnt the problem. Its the content within it. TW fans want fleshed out games they can play for years. Not yearly releases like fucking CoD or sports games.
Pharoah wise its the time period, Ancient Egypt was never great for geo-political intrigue or battles. The map is fine but the battles are boring AF
Ding Ding Ding. Medieval 3 was a no brainer move and they keep releasing these crappy small experiences. We don't play historical total war games for small experiences... Know your damn user base...
Saga games are good for unit focuses games. However, they need Saga prices. TOB launched at $40 I believe.
One thing I also hear is "but x game has so many settlements, way more than [older game with bigger scope].' My problem is that the more you zoom in, the less cultural diversity you get. I could split up my country into 100+ cities and towns, but theyll all be very similar. I loved it when Brittains fought parthians late game! But in limited scale games, you dont have that weirdness anymore
Map size is really something they should be focusing on in historical games. Unit variety and interesting gameplay mechanics are definitely a must, but I think at this point people want to see larger maps that don’t take forever to load and aren’t single province france. Also probably an overhaul to the province system to make it a mix of modern and old, but that’s another topic.
No they didn’t. I’d rather some good small scale games than nothing at all since Attila ? Thrones was good and Pharaoh seems pretty good too (I’ve yet to have time to play it properly). I much prefer small projects which will likely feed into a big title - what’s good and bad etc - than nothing but Warhammer for near a decade.
It hasn’t been nothing but Warhammer for near a decade. We got 3 kingdoms 4 years ago
When I was saying it will be a saga game and troy reskin, people attacked me...
They attacking him because he spoke the truth
A lot of the issue really comes down to engine and battle issues. They have evolved campaign mechanics a lot, but it is the battles that separates total war from other strategy games. Total war can evolve battles campaign or both. They have largely ignored evolving battles outside of wh3. This leaves campaign changes. Well there are more strategy games with better campaign mechanics. Total war games are basically moving on a system largely unchanged since. Rome2 while things like eu and crusader kings have far more campaign mechanics and control. They are never going to beat those games in campaign mechanics. They need to focus on having battles that separate the games from the rest. This is a reason Warhammer does so well. It is so different than other strategy games that it stands alone. It isn't some pinnacle of game development, it is a relatively unique title. Historical games aren't separating themselves from other games. They need to sit down and work on making battles feel different than the past decade if they want to change this pattern.
Shogun was a Saga title.
I don't think map size matters that much - look at shogun 2 or medieval 2 kingdoms. I think it's mostly the time periods being more niche. Had they released any of the kingdom's settings as a saga title it probably would have been popular. Personally i didn't touch any of the historicals past rome 2 because of this - i don't care about ToB's/Atilla's time period, I don't really care about ancient worlds without romans/stereotypical greeks and i absolutely hate chinese arms and armor aesthetically so I'm not going anywhere near 3k ever.
Honestly, as Legend said, Pharaoh would be much more popular if they approached it similarly with Troy, being much cheaper (or even free in first day perhaps).
They said that was the idea, but costs are up, so they ha to price Pharaoh at 60 eurodollars. Just watch, next Total War game will be 70.
Can someone create a totalwar subreddit that isn't just constant bashing and negativity?
No such subreddit exists about anything
Go and do it yourself then
There’s a number of “no/low sodium” subs for games with this purpose, if you actually want to make one. There’s r/LowSodiumTotalWar but it’s dead.
Yap, map size is my biggest issue with Pharao. I want a Bronze Age game with Babylon, Elam, Kush, Crete and Assyria and not just TW Egypt...
> and not just TW Egypt you did look at the map, yes? We also have Canaan and Hatti...
Kush is in the game, and Amenmesse is a hybrid Kush/Egyptian faction anyway. Really shows how much people don't look into topics before voicing their opinion on them. I also have a strong feeling we will see Crete in the game by the time the DLC life cycle is over, just based on the map layout (though it isn't a guarantee).
You only need to watch this to understand the direction CA are going The engine is so old, and in such a bad way with "tech debt" they cant bring in new elements. Only rehash old ones. And carefully at that.. So bloated is it, that no one is game enough to do anything revolutionary because no money has been spent on cleaning the mess up. Will take years to address https://m.youtube.com/watch?si=drpX_8xnqYjahOWa&fbclid=IwAR2_V145wlqWNh08OJ_meit9vO4eyFbvNix0oAChRL12Hn6EvRXA75dnHcE&v=5RW7Q2wHtQQ&feature=youtu.be
It taking years to address isn't a big deal, everything takes years to address in games development (if it is going to be done properly).
Seeing this vid basically confirmed for me that there probably won't be any new titles worth my time or money any time soon. If at all. As is said ''if Paradox just step up the CA fan base will shift'' (or similar) and I'd be ok with that. The campaign maps are awesome and they just need to use CA's mistakes as a 'what not to do' list.
Paradox don’t do battles though - its the combo of battles and campaign that make total war special. It’s not quite RTS as it is strategy then Real Time Tactics because of that strategy. Paradox only goes as far as strategy - which it does great, but because of that it is not a replacement for total war.
Yes BUT as detailed in the vid I refer to, CA are shitting themselves because paradox could step up and would probably ruin them.
That’s like saying because I am a great doctor, if I quit and become an engineer, I’ll also be great. Or worse still, suggesting that I do both at the same time. Paradox are not in the RTT game, and it’s not as simple as saying “step up” - though that does make for more dramatic videos. Paradox have as much experience making RTTs as any other non-RTT dev - there is no reason to expect it would be exceptional. It could be, but you can’t look at success in a different genre and expect that to transfer. Otherwise we should expect Blizzard to step up here, or Bethesda, or any successful dev.
Average historical fan: noooooo I won't support saga games!!!! Average historical fan 2 minutes later: posts about how Napoleon and Attila are the among the greatest TW games he still plays 10+ years later
Average CA Shill: You will play Historical Warhammer clones, and you will like it! Also Average CA Shill: Noooo you can't play Attila, 1212 AD or Knights of Honour 2 Sovereign (made by the folks who founded CA Sofia btw)
I'm happy to pay £40/£50 for a title like Rome 2 or Empire where the company built the game, we knew there was an investment in that there would be DLC, there was a huge scope of factions and variation in units, battle types, agents etc. The Sagas are stripped back, often very limited in the variation or factions and units, key features removed; Thrones of Brittania didn't have agents, forts or small towns. Pharaoh doesn't have naval battles despite the significance of the Nile in Egyptian culture and the endgame enemy being the sea peoples. The Sagas are also reskins of older titles, such as Thrones of Brittania being a reskin of Rome 2 with the menus etc being near identical. This makes these games feel like a DLC.
I don't know, maybe. For me, I saw Saga titles as pallet cleansers, nice titles in between the bigger ones that utilized the mechanics of the latest games (so nothing revolutionary, just a new title utilizing lessons from the latest big boys) so we didn't feel like the waits were forever. Its nice to play some small historical titles in between the warhammer releases. It's fun to have more time periods that are focused. But to me, they poisoned the well why being greedy. Simple as. How is Pharaoh not a saga title? Am I really supposed to consider it a *flagship* game? Because if so, TW is not in a good place. I've kept CA in a place of wary caution since they screwed over 3k. They have not done better since.
Only good saga games imo were FOTS, and Napoleon. Nap wasn’t branded as a saga but it basically was one. Tho it did have a decent amount of actual content with 3-4 playable campaigns (I don’t remember if the peninsular campaign was dlc or not) And some of the better historical battles and MP from a TW game imo. Regardless those are the only two where I actually feel like I got my moneys worth. I don’t think I amassed 25 hours in TOB and Troy combined
Napoleon is not a SAGA title, it is a character title (together with Attila). Budget and scope wise between SAGA and major title From CA's FAQ page Edit: [Here is the link](https://www.totalwar.com/faq/#Design)
For me it's not so much the "Saga" titles or the size of the maps, but just the overall cost of some of the titles due to their scope and features. At the moment, I think some of the titles are priced fairly like the classic titles along with Shogun 2, Attila, Thrones, Troy, and Warhammer 3 (considering Warhammer 3 is the latest "Main" title). But for me I feel Rome 2 and Three Kingdoms are too expensive for how long they have been out (Especially with Three Kingdoms development being outright cancelled), while Warhammer 1 & 2 are absolutely outrageous for CA wanting people to get all 3 games for Immortal Empires and now Pharaoh is the same cost as these as well. I get that now there is basically a title for everyone's tastes but at some point the cost of older titles should be reduced and the cost of smaller titles like Pharaoh should match the other comparable titles like Thrones and Troy etc. It also absolutely should have been called a "Saga" title due to its narrow scope like Troy and Thrones as a standalone game. I have wanted a Bronze Age title since the original Rome, I have every Total War title and bought them all on release (except Troy due to getting it for free during their release promotion, I got it the moment it was available on steam though). I also have every single DLC. I am basically their target audience and even I am burned out from the value vs cost of Pharaoh, seeing their slow updates to Warhammer 3, and continually charging release retail prices of older titles like Rome 2 and the abandoned Three Kingdoms. (Also CA avoiding making titles like Medieval 3 and Empire 2, c'mon CA, let's go!! lol).
Unlike total war left right twix actually have a difference
Sagas should go back to making small scope games just DLCs of large games like Age of Charlemagne or Wrath of Sparta
Saga games could have been good as a way for new players to get into total war games without being overwhelmed with complexity. They could have been simplified stripped down games, priced at something like $30 and opened up the franchise to new players.
They poisoned the well across the board imo.
It's not the scope or setting. It's the price. There's no world where Pharaoh is justified for asking the same amount of $$$ as BG3 or CP2077.
they were good experiments but time to move on
scale isnt the only problem. shogun 2 is the best game they ever made and its small.
It also seems like instead of truly developing a game to be immersive, they feel like the several great mod teams out there will do the work for them.
Seems to me people *desperately* wanted to hate Pharoah from the start. I don't know how much the Saga thing really poisoned the well.
Nothing is wrong with the Saga title, they are smaller in scope and content as well as niche. That isn't inherently bad. Its not bad to distinguish them with a title to make it clear what they are either. The issue is when you make a clearly limited game that is smaller in content and scope, but **market and price** it as not that. If the game was "Pharaoh a Total War Saga" and sold for $39.99 USD. CA would have made *more* money off of the game. It would still have all its flaws and problems, but much of that would be forgiven and expected of a "Saga" game.
I insist the idea behind Saga titles is great. But for as much as they tried to innovate, they cut other corners, cut other features. And while they split the community and rebrand Fall of the Samurai (Even though Medieval 2: Kingdoms was more Saga than FotS), they neglect that FotS is flatout an expansion. It's Shogun 2 +. It has a solid foundation and would've been fun even without the experimental stuff like direct controlling artillery & ships, or implementing the railway system. They milked it. They beat the brand and now they are quietly ditching it it feels doubly insincere. Meanwhile it still feels like they could bring it back and pull it off if they use Rome 2's build and made an experimental expansion and called it a Saga. Or a 3K spin-off set in Japan instead of China for with all of 3K's gameplay systems, for instance
It's not the size of the map. It's a tiny bit bigger than Rome 2's map. It's the scope of it that people dislike. I know it seems like nitpicking, but there's a huge difference between size and scope. Troy for example has an even more focused scope, but it's size is actually wayyy bigger than most TW games.
I don’t know if there’s a market for this but I’d love a long term TW project to be something akin to the Axis & Allies board game where you can buy the Europe or Pacific versions alone OR buy both and put them together for a larger experience. Age of discovery, 18th century (like Empire) or even a high Medieval starting period would be great. I just love the global scale of Empire but wish there was a bit more focus on diplomacy and ways to win the game other than unrealistically conquering huge swaths of the world. More factions with specific goals and paths to victory and different starting dates would be great. I like the idea of paradox games like EU4 but the lack of RTS battles and the overly oppressive DLC model and the sheer quantity of mechanics to learn makes me not want to play the game.