If Pharaoh is still a total war, rather than a total war saga, it will still be misunderstood and hated by players, because if it is a total war, then players need more time to wait for the next total war, if it is a total war saga, it means that players do not need to wait more time, Pharaoh compared to other total war size is too small and the theme is not popular.    Will be hated by players, it would be much more normal if the Pharaoh was a total war saga.

Pharaoh needs to have a more radical game design, because the number of players is small, if the radical game design fails, it will not have a big impact on CA. If the radical game design succeeds, it may save Pharaoh and accumulate technology for the next total war.

Thomashu#5291 wrote:

At its release, the game was definitely a Saga title and still is. A good Saga title, but a Saga nonetheless.

But if given enough time, it could actually have the potential to become an Era Tota War set during the Bronze Age.

Their mistake was to release the game at a too expensive price (and I really like Pharaoh but 60 euros was bonker) without enough cultures and territories.

Although the essence of the Pharaoh is a saga, but its name is total war: Pharaoh, not total war saga: Pharaoh, there are still many people to evaluate the pharaoh by the standard of total war, need to list the pharaoh as a total war saga, so that other players can evaluate the pharaoh by the standard of total war saga，only in this way can the Pharaoh get a more fair evaluation.

ZWY#7702 wrote:

If Pharaoh is still a total war, rather than a total war saga, it will still be misunderstood and hated by players, because if it is a total war, then players need more time to wait for the next total war, if it is a total war saga, it means that players do not need to wait more time, Pharaoh compared to other total war size is too small and the theme is not popular.    Will be hated by players, it would be much more normal if the Pharaoh was a total war saga.

Pharaoh needs to have a more radical game design, because the number of players is small, if the radical game design fails, it will not have a big impact on CA. If the radical game design succeeds, it may save Pharaoh and accumulate technology for the next total war.

Your request to reclassify it as a saga may be understandable, but we may have to wait for the map expansion and the new cultures/factions to make a final opinion. As one post wrote, from Welsh Dragon if I'm not mistaken, we can maybe consider a relaunch. An extension of the map to make a Bronze Age Total War would be nice.

PERICLES1789#7991 wrote:

ZWY#7702 wrote:

If Pharaoh is still a total war, rather than a total war saga, it will still be misunderstood and hated by players, because if it is a total war, then players need more time to wait for the next total war, if it is a total war saga, it means that players do not need to wait more time, Pharaoh compared to other total war size is too small and the theme is not popular.    Will be hated by players, it would be much more normal if the Pharaoh was a total war saga.

Pharaoh needs to have a more radical game design, because the number of players is small, if the radical game design fails, it will not have a big impact on CA. If the radical game design succeeds, it may save Pharaoh and accumulate technology for the next total war.

Your request to reclassify it as a saga may be understandable, but we may have to wait for the map expansion and the new cultures/factions to make a final opinion. As one post wrote, from Welsh Dragon if I'm not mistaken, we can maybe consider a relaunch. An extension of the map to make a Bronze Age Total War would be nice.

Thank you for your understanding, but I think the Pharaoh's subsequent update may not prove that Pharaoh is a total war, the name of total war is too heavy for Pharaoh, even a burden, total war saga is suitable for Pharaoh, many players are angry for Pharaoh as a total war, even if the Pharaoh update is better, those players will not play the Pharaoh, in our Chinese community, As long as someone says the Pharaoh quality is good,      they may face attacks and ridicule (I never thought the Chinese community of Total War was so bad), those who don't like Pharaoh don't care about the quality of the game, they don't even play Pharaoh, because they judge Pharaoh by total war standards, if Pharaoh is a legend, They had no reason to judge the Pharaoh by the standard of total war, but by the standard of total war saga.

Pharaoh isn't a Saga, so there's no need to rename it a Saga. Even before the map expansion in content it's comparable to games like Rome 2 and Shogun 2 were at launch, and once the map expansion comes out it will be even bigger with even more cultures and factions to play as and fight against. While it's never going to rival say Warhammer: Immortal Empires for sheer number of playable factions and cultures, neither has any other historical game except maybe Rome 2 after it received all its DLC. 

I respect you see it differently. 

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

P.S. PERICLES you are correct that I suggested CA might do a rebrand/relaunch for Pharaoh once the map expansion releases, similar to what CA did with Rome 2's Emperor Edition.

Pharaoh is obviously much less rich in content than Rome I, Medieval I, Medieval II, Empire and Rome II and CA has tacitly recognized this by lowering the price of the game. Same as the consumers who refused to purchase such an overpriced game.

Welsh_Dragon#6554 wrote:

Pharaoh isn't a Saga, so there's no need to rename it a Saga. Even before the map expansion in content it's comparable to games like Rome 2 and Shogun 2 were at launch, and once the map expansion comes out it will be even bigger with even more cultures and factions to play as and fight against. While it's never going to rival say Warhammer: Immortal Empires for sheer number of playable factions and cultures, neither has any other historical game except maybe Rome 2 after it received all its DLC. 

I respect you see it differently. 

All the Best,

Welsh Dragon.

P.S. PERICLES you are correct that I suggested CA might do a rebrand/relaunch for Pharaoh once the map expansion releases, similar to what CA did with Rome 2's Emperor Edition.

I think the Pharaoh is actually a saga, because the price of the Pharaoh is very low, even lower than the saga Troy, obviously CA may admit the nature of the pharaoh is a legend through the price, the ancient Egyptian military theme is far less popular than the Roman and shogunate military theme, Pharaoh's popularity is too low, I find it hard to believe that CA Sophia really has confidence to update and improve the pharaoh.

Is terms of scope, by this logic, why was Shogun 2 not a Saga title? The game's literally just one nation, and the factions litererally don't have unit and culture variety, just stats variety. In fact, Pharaoh did everything I mentioned better, except the number of factions. The only thing separating Shogun 2 from the likes of Thrones of Britannia is the DLCs.

Pharaoh is just struggling because not many appreciate, or even know about the time period, but the current content variety already makes it not a Saga title.

I agree with OP pharaoh was released as the "new AAA main title" but we quickly realized that wasn't the case.

subsequently CA also understood this and lowered the selling price.

but it makes no sense today, after months, to put it among the sagas. it would make more sense instead to implement and develop this base to make it the game it could become: bronze age total war

PMDcpn#4373 wrote:

Is terms of scope, by this logic, why was Shogun 2 not a Saga title? The game's literally just one nation, and the factions litererally don't have unit and culture variety, just stats variety. In fact, Pharaoh did everything I mentioned better, except the number of factions. The only thing separating Shogun 2 from the likes of Thrones of Britannia is the DLCs.

Pharaoh is just struggling because not many appreciate, or even know about the time period, but the current content variety already makes it not a Saga title.

Because the total war saga appeared in 2018, and the shogun appeared in 2011, there was no saga concept at that time. One of the characteristics of the total war saga is that military themes are not popular. The military culture of A Total War Saga: THRONES OF BRITANNIA and A Total War Saga: TROY was significantly less popular than that of the shogunate, and Japanese military culture was significantly more attractive.

ZWY#7702 wrote:

PMDcpn#4373 wrote:

Is terms of scope, by this logic, why was Shogun 2 not a Saga title? The game's literally just one nation, and the factions litererally don't have unit and culture variety, just stats variety. In fact, Pharaoh did everything I mentioned better, except the number of factions. The only thing separating Shogun 2 from the likes of Thrones of Britannia is the DLCs.

Pharaoh is just struggling because not many appreciate, or even know about the time period, but the current content variety already makes it not a Saga title.

Because the total war saga appeared in 2018, and the shogun appeared in 2011, there was no saga concept at that time. One of the characteristics of the total war saga is that military themes are not popular. The military culture of A Total War Saga: THRONES OF BRITANNIA and A Total War Saga: TROY was significantly less popular than that of the shogunate, and Japanese military culture was significantly more attractive.

It's not a matter of what year Saga was invented. Fall of the Samurai was not a saga, but was rebranded as saga. And yet it even had more variety than Shogun 2.

Re-classifying it to a "SAGA" will make absolutely zero difference.

I don't know why people obsess over the classification so much.

No need to overthink it. Saga basically means lower-budget game. The definition of CA varies depending on the context. I'm not kidding, CA has said that Saga will be a platform for experimentation and in the next blog they said they will enhance the most popular features of the existing games.

The context of Throb's release is the following. 2017: WH1 has under-performed severely, barely managed to get as many sales as Rome II, which is terrible considering GW's cut (more than 30%). CA's marketing model expected an increase of at least 40%. WH2 is expected to perform even worse (and indeed it did, with around 70% preorders of WH1) and the WH2 announcement trailer was panned by the viewers, who expected a historical game based on the colonial period. Panic ensues. In an effort to appease the fans, CA delays WH3 release (scheduled for 2018 or early 2019), ditches the upcoming tent-pole historical title, because it required too much time to get made, replaces with the much cheaper Three Kingdoms and greenlights Jack Lusted's pet project, Throb, because it desperately needs a historical release.

Throb fails miserably and its DLC circle is cancelled. The setting is unpopular and the game feels like a cheap DLC for Attila. Saga becomes slightly toxic, so CA rebrands Fall of the Samurais as a Saga game to muddle the waters. Troy is announced, sales amazingly well, because it was free, but its retention rates were meh. Now in 2023 the financial situation in CA is a bit fragile, due to exhaustion from annual releases, the bloating from the happy days of the pandemic and the shrinking of the equally inflated gaming industry. So they take an aggressive bet and release Pharaoh in a ridiculous price. Saga is abandoned, because the label is not only toxic, but also associated with cheaper products, which would make Pharaoh's cost looks even more absurd. CA expected mediocre sales that could be offset by the game's small budget and huge price. However their gamble failed and that's good news for the consumer, because such practices are absolutely unacceptable.

Sheikh_Nimr#9382 wrote:

No need to overthink it. Saga basically means lower-budget game. The definition of CA varies depending on the context. I'm not kidding, CA has said that Saga will be a platform for experimentation and in the next blog they said they will enhance the most popular features of the existing games.

The context of Throb's release is the following. 2017: WH1 has under-performed severely, barely managed to get as many sales as Rome II, which is terrible considering GW's cut (more than 30%). CA's marketing model expected an increase of at least 40%. WH2 is expected to perform even worse (and indeed it did, with around 70% preorders of WH1) and the WH2 announcement trailer was panned by the viewers, who expected a historical game based on the colonial period. Panic ensues. In an effort to appease the fans, CA delays WH3 release (scheduled for 2018 or early 2019), ditches the upcoming tent-pole historical title, because it required too much time to get made, replaces with the much cheaper Three Kingdoms and greenlights Jack Lusted's pet project, Throb, because it desperately needs a historical release.

Throb fails miserably and its DLC circle is cancelled. The setting is unpopular and the game feels like a cheap DLC for Attila. Saga becomes slightly toxic, so CA rebrands Fall of the Samurais as a Saga game to muddle the waters. Troy is announced, sales amazingly well, because it was free, but its retention rates were meh. Now in 2023 the financial situation in CA is a bit fragile, due to exhaustion from annual releases, the bloating from the happy days of the pandemic and the shrinking of the equally inflated gaming industry. So they take an aggressive bet and release Pharaoh in a ridiculous price. Saga is abandoned, because the label is not only toxic, but also associated with cheaper products, which would make Pharaoh's cost looks even more absurd. CA expected mediocre sales that could be offset by the game's small budget and huge price. However their gamble failed and that's good news for the consumer, because such practices are absolutely unacceptable.

Your analysis is well-reasoned and has the merit of not casting anathema on the game Pharaoh and its developers. The argument that the "Saga" criterion is "toxic" is well advanced. In any case, this is a marketing error. Has the market research been completed? I'm just sorry that people in the marketing department lost their jobs because to err is human.

People losing their jobs is definitely sad, but I wouldn't blame Pharaoh for it. CA had overextended and overexpended, due to the massive investments following the boom of the gaming industry thanks to the pandemic. It was a real blessing for them. These days are gone, however, so the bloat needs to be removed. Fingers crossed that anyone fired will quickly find a new job to support him/herself and his/her family, but, to be frank, the bubble would burst no matter what.

Pharaoh is probably the result of some corporate executives trying to squeeze the fanbase by selling a full-price title containing a Saga title's amount of content. FOTS has Imperials vs. Shogunate, Troy has Greeks vs. Pelasgians, and Pharaoh, for the most part, is Egyptians vs. Hittites. Now, I do believe CA when they say that they always had the intention to expand the map and include more cultures, but a relaunch might honestly do this game a world of good..