Why Spartan: Total Warrior is a bad idea

[Marek]

So the Creative Assembly, makers of the exquisite PC game Rome: Total War, have just been taken over by SEGA. Good for them!

When I read the press release I also saw they were announcing a new game. At first glance I thought "Yay! It's Spartan: Total War, the sequel to Rome!". Then I looked closer and saw it was for consoles only. Then I looked even closer and noticed the "Warrior" bit, and that you'd only play as one soldier. So I thought, "Great! This will be this epic thing, like Rome: Total War, except from the perspective of one soldier! Too bad I can't play it on my PC." Then I read that the new game won't necessarily be historical at all, and will include fantasy elements such as "mythical beasts and legendary monsters".

What the fuck? Why bother associating a totally different and new franchise with the Total War brand at all? Talk about watering down your excellent brand. I'm really dissapointed that Spartan: Total Warrior is the complete opposite of what I wanted it to be when I first saw its name.

I mean, an the one hand you have a game where you play a general, in an epic strategic war, which combines RTS and TBS elements, is historical ("realistic"), and is played on the PC.

And on the other hand you have a game where you play some soldier dude, in epic tactical battles, is an action/combat game, is not historical, and is played on the consoles.

Heinz pickles anyone? If I were Scott Miller, this would be the point where I'd rant about Spartan: Total Warrior being a classic case of poor line extension.

I'm just smelling a C&C Renegades here. That doesn't rule out the game will actually be good, but it's still a shitty move.

There, I'm done.

[Lechimp]

Yeah, I agree it's a crappy move, it was obviously Sega's idea (being a console game company and all, and refusing to talk to PC Gamer one time just because they're a pc gaming magazine and not a console gaming one) Even though I usually like Sega, it usually sucks when game developers are taken over by big publishers.

[SoccerDude28]

I friggin hate Sega and every other big publisher out there. Not only are they suffocating what is left for us PC gamers, they are turning great PC franchises to trash. And on a fuckin far inferior platform too. Sega should stick to their retarded sonic and virtua fighter crap and leave the best strategy game for people who actually went and shed 1000 dollars on their PC's to play such games. And they say all japanese publishers are innovators. MY ASS.

[Ninja Dodo]

Wait... I thought they were just publishing this game. They've bought the whole company?

[SoccerDude28]

Wait... I thought they were just publishing this game. They've bought the whole company?

Yes To be more competitive in North America and Europe

http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/03/09/news_6120096.html

[TMCB]

I don't think SEGA should have used the Total War franchise in such a cold manner (blatant exploitation of a known series). But I quite like the idea, mind you I like the button basher Dynasty Warriors.

Hopefully they'll make it a bit more like Kingdom under fire: the crusaders (?). But knowing SEGA they're just as likely to make Panzer Dragoon 'but with the novel twist, he is on foot!'

[Marek]

Mind you, my problem is not in Spartan being a console title. That's fine. The PC line of strategy games will also be continued. What bothers me is that they confuse their fanbase by needlessly tacking a console action title onto a PC strategy franchise.

[TMCB]

I see what you mean and agree. SEGA should just call it something else entirely and be done with it.

That at least would have the double merit of stopping them looking like cheeky, manipulative buggers. And give the game a chance of standing on its own merit, and not having the fan boys drawing comparisons between it and the strategy series, as well as rubbishing it in the process.