Last Game You Played and What You Would Rate It Out of 10

[Kumorii]

If you want to min max siege battles that's on the player.
All I want is a cinematic approach, with multiple layers of defences, fighting in towns.

You can add multiple victory points, walls that actually *work* and units can shoot down from normally, walls where cavalry can ride on (as this is actually in-lore in Warhammer) etc. etc. yada yada.

You aren't looking at medieval cities when you talk about Warhammer. You have (not exclusively) big alleys, big forums, big stuff everywhere. Regiments can actually form up lines and not turn into a cluster fuck. Flanking is still possible inside cities because the streets are connected.

The reason they removed them from this game was supposedly that they don't work well with the AI, but guess what, it's just as bad with the more simple-clusterfuck layout that doesn't actually work either. The AI doesn't do anything during sieges, moves awkwardly along the walls and keeps it's strongest units so far back that they are worthless (such as dragons and stuff)

So increase the size of the cities which turns them into non-siege maps when it comes to maneuverability. Which I agree, it should be done because moving armies around inside a city is kinda meh at this point. That however makes them more up to par to other maps rather than being the most epic thing in my eyes.
Even if that's fixed the main thing that makes a siege battle and a normal map separated from each other is mainly the walls. The rest are obstacles with various coats of paint.

Making siege battles more epic is more difficult than people realise I think. At least I have no idea how to solve it since sieges in nature are about chokepoints which is what defense relies on. Chokepoints means less options as an attacker. Defending a siege is definitely more fun than attacking since you have more control over it.

If they manage to fix it in warhammer 3, I'm all for it. I just don't think it will ever be "epic".

from 2:33. Something like that.

That's a cinematic.... Everything in that cinematic is already in game? Walls, siege weapons and armies rushing each other... got anything more tangible and concrete on how to make the gameplay for sieges better?

[ParanoiD84]

So increase the size of the cities which turns them into non-siege maps when it comes to maneuverability. Which I agree, it should be done because moving armies around inside a city is kinda meh at this point. That however makes them more up to par to other maps rather than being the most epic thing in my eyes.
Even if that's fixed the main thing that makes a siege battle and a normal map separated from each other is mainly the walls. The rest are obstacles with various coats of paint.

Making siege battles more epic is more difficult than people realise I think. At least I have no idea how to solve it since sieges in nature are about chokepoints which is what defense relies on. Chokepoints means less options as an attacker. Defending a siege is definitely more fun than attacking since you have more control over it.

If they manage to fix it in warhammer 3, I'm all for it. I just don't think it will ever be "epic".

There are other total war games with much better sieges like thrones of britannia (best part of the game other then that it's pretty meh) Rome 2 had some epic sieges like cartage and Medieval 2 for it's time had very good sieges. Didint try Troy yet but i heard they are great there too, Three Kingdom had some good ones too and so had Atilla and it looked great where you could put everything on fire.

Cities where much bigger and had alot more space to move around in those games compared to Warhammer.

I hope they will pull ideas from all other titles to make for some epic sieges in part 3. Or perhaps they will do something new and different we will see soon enough.

[Kumorii]

There are other total war games with much better sieges like thrones of britannia (best part of the game other then that it's pretty meh) Rome 2 had some epic sieges like cartage and Medieval 2 for it's time had very good sieges. Didint try Troy yet but i heard they are great there too, Three Kingdom had some good ones too.

I think they will pull ideas from all other titles to make for some epic sieges in part 3.

Playing Troy atm and settlement battles are better, they have no walls but they have built the settlement at a strategic point which results in choke points and such. Since there are no walls the attackers have more choice as well since there are more entries into the city. Sieges are the same though. I think improvements to unit movement and pathing makes it more enjoyable to navigate through these sections and they are also a bit bigger than warhammer 2's.
What I recall from three kingdoms sieges were the same as Warhammer. That could be me approaching it the same however.

looking at the other examples you brought up it seems like scale is the biggest issue. Which I agree they are abysmal in warhammer 2, but gameplay seems exactly the same due to the walls, which is my problem with sieges. Doesn't matter to me if there is a city which has tremendous scale and being surrounded by walls because walls have to be approached in the same way. Destroy wall, climb wall or destroy gate. For me they have to sort out that part but I can't for the life of me figure out how.
Maybe if you can incorporate some spy stuff that can open gates in the midst of battle to allowed attacker units to flank. You have pretty much 100% vision over your walls which means if attacker splits up, you do the same and then it's the same fight but on 2 places instead of one etc etc.

[ParanoiD84]

Playing Troy atm and settlement battles are better, they have no walls but they have built the settlement at a strategic point which results in choke points and such. Since there are no walls the attackers have more choice as well since there are more entries into the city. Sieges are the same though. I think improvements to unit movement and pathing makes it more enjoyable to navigate through these sections and they are also a bit bigger than warhammer 2's.
What I recall from three kingdoms sieges were the same as Warhammer. That could be me approaching it the same however.

looking at the other examples you brought up it seems like scale is the biggest issue. Which I agree they are abysmal in warhammer 2, but gameplay seems exactly the same due to the walls, which is my problem with sieges. Doesn't matter to me if there is a city which has tremendous scale and being surrounded by walls because walls have to be approached in the same way. Destroy wall, climb wall or destroy gate. For me they have to sort out that part but I can't for the life of me figure out how.
Maybe if you can incorporate some spy stuff that can open gates in the midst of battle to allowed attacker units to flank. You have pretty much 100% vision over your walls which means if attacker splits up, you do the same and then it's the same fight but on 2 places instead of one etc etc.

Yeah mostly scale some cities in warhammer look amazing and are huge but most of it are locked off so it would be great if they opened them up more and perhaps made the inside like streets and stuff larger scale so you can maneuver your armies better there too.

I think modders who have made custom made maps did a awesome job with much bigger siege maps in warhammer.

I like your ideas though.

[Kumorii]

Yeah mostly scale some cities in warhammer look amazing and are huge but most of it are locked off so it would be great if they opened them up more and perhaps made the inside like streets and stuff larger scale so you can maneuver your armies better there too.

I think modders who have made custom made maps did a awesome job with much bigger siege maps in warhammer.

I like your ideas though.

Which mods would that be? I downloaded some of the top rated city maps but they were mostly a lot tighter in space and they seemed to have focused more on aesthetics rather than gameplay so I didn't keep them for long :P

[ParanoiD84]

Which mods would that be? I downloaded some of the top rated city maps but they were mostly a lot tighter in space and they seemed to have focused more on aesthetics rather than gameplay so I didn't keep them for long :P

The GCCM mod, though i just tried a couple but they where pretty nice.

Exited to see what CA does with sieges in part 3 though.

[KrayZ33]

Which mods would that be? I downloaded some of the top rated city maps but they were mostly a lot tighter in space and they seemed to have focused more on aesthetics rather than gameplay so I didn't keep them for long :P

The custom maps are often buggy, sadly, like - invisible walls and stuff.
And the tools for AI control are, afaik, rather limited, so you can't really give them goals to defend/attack etc. (this might have changed by now - but the game mechanics at this point don't support siege battles)
And Walls don't even work well for defenders in Total War Warhammer, so no matter what you create as a custom map, it won't feel right because the game is limiting archers in siege battles so much

for example, it's no coincidence that custom maps like these use terrain for archers to stand on and shoot instead of actual walls where they could shoot down from.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fm3TJ_amRoI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTxQxgDDAb4

these maps need more victory points that buff units etc.

You can have battles on a field, battles on the walls, battles on the market square and battles on some outer defences all at the same time. But the Total War games actually have to give players some incentives to do that.
The siege is over once you've reached the walls currently and the layout after that are most of the time rather buggy (i.e. units can't line up correctly) and so small, you can't even place your units!. That's the biggest insult to it all.
I have 40 units and only room for like 20 without them blocking each other.

Even maps that are only slightly adjusted are better in that regard, such as this one
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TeHzNZ4bsjU

And it's not just siege battles.
Most open maps are absolutely flipping boring too. It's just a flat surface 9 out of 10 times.

That's why I'd never give the game a 10/10 score as long as battles are *that* boring tactically speaking on maps that look stunnig when you look *out* of the battlefield, but like a game from 10-20 years ago when you concentrate on the battlemap itself.

This is how at least half of the open maps should look like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mu7UUYEhK3E

[CarlingBlackLabel]

I agree it's easily a 10/10 game and we still have part 3 to look forward to making the huge game even bigger.

Plus they said they will rework sieges for part 3 and that's the only thing i could think off that needs fixing.

Ah yeah, I forgot about the wonky siege battles. Still giving it a 10 though as I love the game! 3 should be an interesting game with even more factions, LLs and stuff, can't wait!

Oh and your signature? Yes. Yes I do.

The sieges are also why it's not actually a 10/10.
The AI is horrible on those and they are very boring, when they should be the most fun battles throughout a campain.

You do have a point but they're not game breaking for me and don't detract from my enjoyment so keeping it a 10 from my own point of view. Hopefully the 3rd game fixes them.

[Ehrenpanzer]

Kingdom Hearts 12/10

[Wishblade]

Outer Wilds - 8/10

Very intriguing and engaging but had a few elements that I didn't enjoy, along with getting a bit too repetitive.

[Flame6]

FFXIV 5/10. I'm sticking it out because they say it gets better. I did not think the ARR story was anything special and worthy of all its praise though. Felt generic.

[RuneDK]

Ghost of Tsushima 9/10 - Story was meh in Act 1, awesome in Act 2, and pretty good to predictable in Act 3. Saving grace is how good the game play is. Sword fighting was absolutely excellent. The assassination aspect was good, the setting and environment are 100% 10/10 though...

[Frostfred]

Last game I finished: Mass Effect Andromeda - 5/10
Imo a really average average game, with many flaws. I get where most of the hate is coming from, considering the previous installations, though it probably wouldn't have gotten so much if it wouldn't have been a "Mass Effect".

Good points for me were: I liked most of the main story. Nothing super fancy or intriguing, but it was ok. Corresponding missions were also nice. Combat was ok (with one big downside), though I just played biotic and didn't test the others out.

Bad points: The 3 spell max still holds the combat back imo, as it really limits tactical choices. At least as a biotic, you need one primer and one detonator. So 2 of the spells are already fixed in their purpose, which leaves you only one to choose from freely. The only reason I could find, was that they had a lot of multiplayer-only stuff, which covered the rest of the keyboard # in the custom layout. So maybe they decided to cripple combat in single player to avoid too much clutter in multiplayer. Considering they stopped single player support quite early on, with quite a few bugs during various quests (some breaking the quest) still in place, it seems likely. The other major downside imo is, that exploring the world just isn't fun for the most part. There were almost no surprises or nice storylines to explore. Almost all sites to explore were just some Remnant pillars with a few of them, or a shuttle crash site with some outlaws, or a few Kett machines and a few of them, etc. Only very few exceptions are there.

[zealo]

Ahhh I miss Mass Effect. The weird thing is that I downloaded Andromeda to play, started playing it and the graphics felt inferior compared to 3? The gameplay was also weird. SOMETHING was off with it and I can't pinpoint what, beyond just how worse it looked.

Anyone who thinks the graphics in of itself looks worse in Andromeda than ME3 have eyesight issues.

On the other hand, Bioware have always had issues with stiff and janky animation and so on, it's just that the reduced graphical fidelity in prior games compared to newer ones put it less in the uncanny valley region, and helped cover those issues up more, as increased graphics puts greater strain on the needing animation to look realistic.

[Yriel]

Morrowind 2/10
I tried again to get into Morrowind but i just can't. I bought Morrowind when it was released back then, i still have the box on the shelve behind me. I was a big fan of Daggerfall but even back then i could never get into Morrowind. The combat just sucks, you are soooo slow, the log is bad and the game has a horrible difficulty scaling. The first quest of the fighters guild is to kill 3 rats, the fifth or sixed sends you on a 40 minute journey to a dungeon with 8 lv 16 enemies. Year, great, thanks Morrowind, i'm lv 4 right now. Same with thieves guild, fifth or sixth quest is to steal something that is locked with a lv75 lock that i just can't pick. I have to raise my security skill for at least 12 points, i don't have the money to do this and can never find so many locks to practice.
I have the feeling a lot of the people liking this game just cheat... the ususal tips i found for my problems was along the lines of "Just go to city X and from there 35 minutes northwest to the dungeon "quetubatuz", run through to the lowest level, dive into the pool and there right by a skeleton is ring of lockpicking" "Just go the the barracks in xyz and there in the west tower in the highest level is a closet an on top of it is a powerful sword".
Yeah, nice but how should a new player know this? When i do this i can get the items per console, where is the difference?
I still want to experience the story, all the dwemer lore really interests me but i have no idea what i am supposed to do now and i think it is (and never was) my kind of game.

It's just to oldschool for me, other people like it, good for them.
Instead i played

Oblivion 7/10
That game, for a 14 year old game, is still really good. Even the graphics, even without mods look still fine. The combat is still somewhat barebones but so much better then morrowind and still fun, the quests are well done. And Khajiit don't look ridicolous, like in Morrowind.
I'm still not a fan of the level scaling (especially at the end, lv 30+, when the enemies get more and more spongy) but aside from that it's still a fun game with great quests and much to do.

[Toybox]

Celeste: 9.5/10

Up there with Shovel Knight & Touhou Luna Nights for me. Gameplay is perfect, story is charming, OST is incredible, & the art is endearing. Really enjoyed my time with it, and there's plenty more left to go with the post-game content. Currently at 5.8k deaths with all Strawberries collected & b-sides 1-4 finished.

[Your Mommy]

Digimon World! Super Duper 10 out of 10!! My favorite game ever!!!

[Eapoe]

Shadowrun on SNES. 7/10
Prior to that Final Fantasy 2 & 3 (U.S. versions). 7/10 & 9/10
Just before that Chrono Trigger on SNES 10/10
Getting ready to start A Plague Tale: Innocence. Hoping it’s good.

[Jastall]

Last game I finished: Mass Effect Andromeda - 5/10
Imo a really average average game, with many flaws. I get where most of the hate is coming from, considering the previous installations, though it probably wouldn't have gotten so much if it wouldn't have been a "Mass Effect".

Good points for me were: I liked most of the main story. Nothing super fancy or intriguing, but it was ok. Corresponding missions were also nice. Combat was ok (with one big downside), though I just played biotic and didn't test the others out.

Bad points: The 3 spell max still holds the combat back imo, as it really limits tactical choices. At least as a biotic, you need one primer and one detonator. So 2 of the spells are already fixed in their purpose, which leaves you only one to choose from freely. The only reason I could find, was that they had a lot of multiplayer-only stuff, which covered the rest of the keyboard # in the custom layout. So maybe they decided to cripple combat in single player to avoid too much clutter in multiplayer. Considering they stopped single player support quite early on, with quite a few bugs during various quests (some breaking the quest) still in place, it seems likely. The other major downside imo is, that exploring the world just isn't fun for the most part. There were almost no surprises or nice storylines to explore. Almost all sites to explore were just some Remnant pillars with a few of them, or a shuttle crash site with some outlaws, or a few Kett machines and a few of them, etc. Only very few exceptions are there.

I have mostly the same impression. I'd give it a 6 after the patches it got, and because most of the loyalty missions were great, especially Liam's. Combat was fun overall except for the ability limit (which you can sorta get around with Soldier abilities but still), the writing is pretty cringe in places and good in others, visually it's nice but with ass facial animations, the weapon variety is great but the upgrade system is obtuse as fuck for no reason, basically the game doesn't have a good point that does not come with an equivalent flaw I think. Hell you can say the same for the squadmates; I liked Jaal, Drack and Vetra, but didn't like or was just indifferent to Liam, Cora and Peebee.

I still think it got a disproportionate amount of hate. It's not a bad game, it just fails to be a good one. I'd say it's worth a try now, on sale and after patches.

[desertlizard]

RE3 ps1 8/10


for the 20th time i finish one of my favourite saga, from the 3 original games its the most action oriented but still a touch of survival, haven't play the remake but i heard it gives no justice to the original one, which if its true, real feeling is i sure wont be dissapointed, i think remakes shouldn't be exactly every single aspect the same as the original game and im fine with that, so we ll see when i eventually play it.