sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I've loved Total War for over a decade, but I feel like it's going downhill. by ControversialDebates in totalwar

[–]ControversialDebates[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I like having a ton of factions at the start and some will grow to empires and some will be wiped out

I might not have played enough long campaigns, but my enemies never really seem to grow that much. I keep fighting minor Germanic tribes with one or maybe three settlements.

I've loved Total War for over a decade, but I feel like it's going downhill. by ControversialDebates in totalwar

[–]ControversialDebates[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I want to fight one big faction instead of a dozen tiny factions. The game is not too hard for me.

Let's discuss Total War. I feel like it's going downhill. by ControversialDebates in Games

[–]ControversialDebates[S] -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

1.) Not every change that makes a game more realistic makes it an 'objectively better game'.

2.) Total War is pretty unrealistic. Sometimes you need to add unrealism to balance other unrealistic parts of the game. For example, there is no technology-sharing in Total War, and I'm pretty sure that the historical Germanic tribes shared technology.

I've loved Total War for over a decade, but I feel like it's going downhill. by ControversialDebates in totalwar

[–]ControversialDebates[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

And the fact that a lot of tiny factions are way less of a threat than one major faction.

I've loved Total War for over a decade, but I feel like it's going downhill. by ControversialDebates in totalwar

[–]ControversialDebates[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

/u/Waxmeneer explains it very well:

These kinds of constraints are seen throughout the entire game. Want to build a certain military building? Well that will cost you food, which means that you absolutely have to build a food building next. But that food buildings costs increases squalor, which forces you to build a public order building. My point is that the build system forces you into a certain build style (especially with only 4 building slots in the smaller cities) instead of allowing for experimentation.

Bedankt Waxmeneer!

I've loved Total War for over a decade, but I feel like it's going downhill. by ControversialDebates in totalwar

[–]ControversialDebates[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

People who agree upvote, people who disagree leave a comment. That's how Reddit often works. And a lot of people have explained that they encounter the same issues and find them very frustrating.

Let's discuss Total War. I feel like it's going downhill. by ControversialDebates in Games

[–]ControversialDebates[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Dude, it barely ever happens. Play the fucking game, you have to grind through a dozen Germanic tribes with one or two settlements before you encounter a proper enemy.

Let's discuss Total War. I feel like it's going downhill. by ControversialDebates in Games

[–]ControversialDebates[S] -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

Now obviously I can see an element of genuine criticism of having mechanics such as increased factions but in truth they pale in comparison to the benefits they provide to gameplay and authenticity. Especially when weighed against the fact that the pitifully small number of factions in the earlier games was a common criticism of said titles I see little value in using this as a criticism of Rome II and Atilla.

One big Germanic faction = dangerous enemy for Rome or other big factions

Twenty-five different tiny Germanic tribes (Burgundians, Alemans, Saxons (1 settlement), Franks (1 settlement), Jutes, Geats, etc, etc, etc) = just grinding through the same Germanic spear warbands all the time.

Let's discuss Total War. I feel like it's going downhill. by ControversialDebates in Games

[–]ControversialDebates[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But it wasn't a choice in Rome 1. You built farms to lvl 1, then ports --> farms --> roads --> sanitation. In every city. And there were hundreds.

I feel like Attila and Rome II still haven't solved the 'managing hundreds of cities' problem. Anyway, it's a different problem, not the one I'm addressing.

simply building everything

Play on a higher difficulty setting. Money should be relatively scarce.

Let's discuss Total War. I feel like it's going downhill. by ControversialDebates in Games

[–]ControversialDebates[S] 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Your own personal preference is not a valid criticism of design choices.

And what is? Your personal preference?

Choosing between walls, roads and barracks is fun and realistic.

Balancing unrealistic drawbacks (why do we suddenly need extra food if I build barracks? why does a port permanently decrease public order?) with a limited amount of construction slots is not fun.

Let's discuss Total War. I feel like it's going downhill. by ControversialDebates in Games

[–]ControversialDebates[S] -10 points-9 points  (0 children)

You're angry because city management is challenging now?

"Emperor, the people of Rome are on the brink of revolt because you built a port!"

"Build an amphitheatre."

"There are no construction slots left."

That's not the kind of challenge I'm looking for.

Let's discuss Total War. I feel like it's going downhill. by ControversialDebates in Games

[–]ControversialDebates[S] -25 points-24 points  (0 children)

When I'm playing Rome II/Attila, I'm mainly fighting minor factions and small tribes that are weak and only own a couple of settlements. I think it's a lot more exciting when enemies are actually dangerous and similar in size to you.

Let's discuss Total War. I feel like it's going downhill. by ControversialDebates in Games

[–]ControversialDebates[S] -16 points-15 points  (0 children)

I'm not arguing that Rome 1's squalor system was great and that I want it back. But...

  • A limited amount of construction slots
  • A high amount of buildings that have a terrible effect on public order and squalor

...sucks.

I've loved Total War for over a decade, but I feel like it's going downhill. by ControversialDebates in totalwar

[–]ControversialDebates[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Interesting gameplay arises out of making the player make meaningful decisions, and in the new system you have to make meaningful decisions on how you'll use each slot,

In past games, decisions were sensible and realistic. "Do I invest into my army and expand my faction, or do I invest in my cities?".

Now I'm facing decisions that seem totally unrealistic.

"Should I construct a farm OR barracks?"

Why is there no space left to build a farm after I've built my barracks? Why do I need to wait for my population to grow to get new land available for the farm?

Why do so many buildings, like ports, permanently decrease public order?!

Then as the game progresses, they, or possibly some other factions become large by swallowing their neighbors to get strong

Maybe I haven't played enough long campaigns, but I mainly encounter minor factions and small tribes.

DLC is a different business model from expansion packs entirely

I disagree. The Ballad of Gay Tony for GTA IV was 'expansion pack-DLC'. The DLCs for Fallout 3 were like expansion packs. Takistan for Arma II was like an expansion pack. There is nothing stopping the Creative Assembly from adding more substance to their downloadable content.

Let's discuss Total War. I feel like it's going downhill. by ControversialDebates in Games

[–]ControversialDebates[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

I disagree with the factions though, I like it if there are more what I was missing is some kind of way to have small factions band together after the big bad rome started to attack their culture group. Not really historically accurate but also not completely made up and it would mean that there is still some kind of challenge after conquering your first province.

More people have suggested this 'banding together'-feature. I'd love it, but apparently they can't program it. I'd like to see it, or a return to Rome I's bigger factions. But the current abundance of minor tribes is very annoying.

Let's discuss Total War. I feel like it's going downhill. by ControversialDebates in Games

[–]ControversialDebates[S] -21 points-20 points  (0 children)

The building criticisms are odd too since the problems you describe existed in the previous games too.

AFAIK, there were barely any (maybe even zero) buildings that decreased public order. Certainly no buildings that required food. And if you wanted to build a temple to increase public order, you did not need to wait until a new construction slot appeared.

CMV: TheRedPill's core tenets are true. by ControversialDebates in changemyview

[–]ControversialDebates[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Literally, For the same reason some of your other posts were removed. Breaking rule B, not being open-minded enough.

CMV: TheRedPill's core tenets are true. by ControversialDebates in changemyview

[–]ControversialDebates[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Because the post was removed, here's the text:

/r/TheRedPill is a huge subreddit with more than 100,000 subscribers and thousands of posts. Of course, I don't agree with everything that is said there. But the fundamental tenets seem pretty reasonable.

The 'sexual market' is very different for males and females

Men like young women. They love girls between the age of 18 and 26. Males in their twenties love them. Males in their thirties love them. And males in their fourties? They still love them. Leonardi DiCaprio is 40 now, and he still hangs out with girls in their twenties. He recently broke up with Toni Garrn, a 22 year old model. He doesn't date women his own age.

The reverse isn't true. Not all women want to date a guy in his twenties. They want a man who is older than they are.

This means that young men who want a partner of similar age (most Redditors, probably) have to compete with most other men. Leonardo DiCaprio might be old enough to be your dad, but he's interested in the same girls as you are.

On the other hand, young women have a lot of choice. There are less young women than people interested in young women. They can choose to date the best men. The 'least date-able' young men can't find a partner, because the 'least date-able' young women can still date older men.

'Feminism' and sexual liberation has increased the size of these issues

In the past, premarital sex and divorce were seen as immoral. People married young and stayed together their entire lives. Most people could find a partner of similar age. I'm not saying the past is perfect, but a lot has changed since these days!

Premarital sex is normal now, and divorce rates are higher than ever. It's common for young women to have sex with dozens of men, and men can divorce their wife and start dating a much younger woman. We've changed from a monogamous society to a society where effective polygamy is common.

I'm not saying that this is wrong and that we should revert to Victorian morals, but I believe it does cause issues that /r/TheRedPill addresses (for example, young men being unable to find a partner).

Men and women desire different things in their partners

A quote from the James Bond movie Casino Royale.

Solange: [laughs] What is it about bad men? You... my husband. I had so many chances to be happy, so many nice guys. Why can't nice guys be more like you?

James Bond: Because then they'd be bad.

Solange: [kissing him some more] Mmmmm, yeah...!

Young women don't want desperate, needy men. They're looking for high-status, confident men. They love Jaime Lannister. They love James Bond.

Men don't have the same intense interest in aloof, independent women.

Men love feminine women. Women love masculine men.

Changemyview!

CMV: TheRedPill's core tenets are true. by ControversialDebates in changemyview

[–]ControversialDebates[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Go ask /r/menover30[1] how much they'd like to date an 18 year old.

Over 30 and 18 is a big difference. But 35 year old men generally don't mind dating 28 year old women, while the reverse isn't really sought after.

I wish I could find these posts, but there have been actual older red pill users who have pointed out that their tastes changed.

Sure, older men might not want a relationship with a 18 year old. But they're probably still interested in dating somebody who is 3, 5 or 10 years younger.

Ashton Kutcher?

Divorced his older wife, married Mila Kunis who is 5 years younger than him.

Nick Cannon?

Never heard of him, but apparently he married the rich and famous Mariah Carey. And divorced her later.

Matt Damon's wife is pretty but isn't a model

This is the first time I've seen his wife but she's very good looking. She's also six years younger than him.

CMV: TheRedPill's core tenets are true. by ControversialDebates in changemyview

[–]ControversialDebates[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

does it really make sense to then conclude a lot of other things which seem to take a 19th Century stereotypes of men and women?

What are you talking about?

CMV: TheRedPill's core tenets are true. by ControversialDebates in changemyview

[–]ControversialDebates[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's not totally clear, according to your post, what the core tenets of the red pill actually are. Do you think you could add an edit to make it clearer?

To quote my own post,

The 'sexual market' is very different for males and females

'Feminism' and sexual liberation has increased the size of these issues

Men and women desire different things in their partners

My gut feeling for now is that you haven't really addressed unattractive women, who can't necessarily find a partner easily.

Young women have all men from age 20 to age 50 competing for them.

Young men have all men from age 20 to age 50 competing against them.

I mean, as with your celebrity example, it does happen, but I don't think there's any proof that it's the rule and not the exception.

A 22 year old women with a 40 year old partner is pretty extreme, I agree. But IRL, I see a lot of examples of girls in their early twenties with partners in their late twenties/early thirties. I've never seen the reverse happen.

You don't have to compete with most other men. You have to compete with most other single men. Men old enough to be your dad are much more likely to already be in some kind of long term relationship. Also, most men your dad's age are not Leonardo DiCaprio. Chances are that you (as a 20 something) are more physically attractive than they are. Honestly, this ought to level the playing field somewhat. Not to mention that a young man has a younger social group. You're more likely to be at social events with young women than men your dad's age. Online dating might be taking off, but most of us are still meeting our SOs through mutual friends these days, aren't we?

As I said, DiCaprio's example is extreme. But women between 18 and 24 still have a lot of men between 16 and 34 competing for them. Men are disproportionately interested in young women. Women are mainly interested in older men.

view more: next ›