Good review as always,
just wished instead of going over all the bad points at the end you would go over both good and bad points
as at the end of nearly all game reviews im left with a negative impression of the game that i cant quite shake off.
Anyways looks like a truly epic game
About the specifications, what were the specifications of the PC that you were using to write this reveiew? Im looking to either upgrade or replace my PC in order to get this game and play it well but need a better idea on what specs work well!
Im currently thinking of getting a Dual core processor (E5200), 4GB ram and an ATI 4670 graphics card (for a low power HTPC) and im hoping that would be able to play this on medium-High settings
Our PC here packs a 3.25 usable RAM, an X6800 at 3.0Ghz and a GTX 280 - but our code is a week ahead of the retail version, so may not have the advantage of the latest drivers. Still, it was able to play on Ultra for all except the large naval battles.
The best thing to do is check the recommended requirements for the retail version of the game.
I've just built a PC (upgrade) for one of my dads mates, with a view to playing this game. It's an e5200, 2GB ram, Pallit Geforce 9600GT and it runs the demo quite happily on medium-high with AA+AF and all the hardware shadows, effects etc turned on
I've just built a PC (upgrade) for one of my dads mates, with a view to playing this game. It's an e5200, 2GB ram, Pallit Geforce 9600GT and it runs the demo quite happily on medium-high with AA+AF and all the hardware shadows, effects etc turned on
Great, thanks for that, apparently the 9600GT and the 4670 are similarly powerful for gaming (the 9600GT just edges it I think) so the 4670 should be fine for my build (looking for as low power and quiet as possible, but with a bit og gaming grunt!)
Great review by the way, really looking forward to this game :-)
The one thing I want to know is whether the AI has imporved since medieval 2.
For example, when you ask a unit of foot soldiers to go into a castle after battering down the gate. Then five minutes later you wonder why they're not where you want them to be yet, and then you spot them qued up at one the ladders you used to scale the walls earlier! Silly infantry, why did you choose the slowest way of getting into the castle instead of the quickest, I need you now goddamit, now!
Also, for some reason placing infantry formations inside settlements was a breeze in RTW, but they managed to mess it up in medieval 2. It was awfully cumbersome, so hard to arrange your units into an effective defence once they got inside a settlement.
The few bad points for the game seem to be for those not already used to the previous Total War games, who don't know anything about the period and who arent into what could be described as hardcore games. I understand you have to review with everyone in mind and therefore it falls down in these areas. What I would like to know is if you were reviewing this as a hardcore gamer who had played a bit of some previous titles and had some knowledge of history how much would have this affected the score?
Originally Posted by AcidJiles The few bad points for the game seem to be for those not already used to the previous Total War games, who don't know anything about the period and who arent into what could be described as hardcore games. I understand you have to review with everyone in mind and therefore it falls down in these areas. What I would like to know is if you were reviewing this as a hardcore gamer who had played a bit of some previous titles and had some knowledge of history how much would have this affected the score?
Thanks
I reviewed it as myself, a hardcore gamer with a general knowledge of history and a familiarity with the series. I loved and devoured Rome and Shogun, but skipped over Medieval. Harry also leant his thoughts and, since he has a history degree and a RTS obsession, he knows what he's talking about.
One sentance review - Not as good as Medieval 2: Total War.
Joe's critisms of the world map might not irritate those who're used to the more complex world of Medieval 2, but the critisms of the Sea Battles are spot on. They really are a huge disappointment and the larger engamements quickly become very overwhealming.
The problem is that even when controlling land battles of thousands of units, you're rarely individually managing every unit - you group them into cavalry blobs, musketeer blobs, artillery blobs, and use them as such.
With the ship battles you basically need to micomanage many individual vessels simultaneously to stand a chance, which quickly becomes an exercise in frustration and missed timing as you switch ammo and cue up broadsides. I for one was sorely disappointed by the Sea battles and they have turned what was a "Must Buy" game into a "I'll play it once i've finished Dawn of War 2" game. Which as a huge fan of the total war series is a huge shame :(
Loved Rome. so i'm getting this, don't care mutch for the sae battles, as long i can send hundrets of men to a screaming meaningless death, thats all i need...
Originally Posted by chambochae Also, for some reason placing infantry formations inside settlements was a breeze in RTW, but they managed to mess it up in medieval 2.
The settlement placing was the same.
Did you play with larger units on M2TW than on RTW?
I had big problems with the camera control (and the alternative camera control) in land battles.
And the same problem (too much micromanaging nececcary) in the navylbattles.
The line of battleship of the line should be able to sail in a line as a group...and move like that in formation without beeing told so individually.
Originally Posted by CardJoe I loved and devoured Rome and Shogun, but skipped over Medieval.
I regard MTW as the best of the series, so far. Its the more complete of all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baz The problem is that even when controlling land battles of thousands of units, you're rarely individually managing every unit - you group them into cavalry blobs, musketeer blobs, artillery blobs, and use them as such.
In the demo, I have been using a single column of ships, its the same concept, you command the group of similar units, not the units individually. Been geting decisive victories.
I have to agree with the blobbing, at least compared to the demo. On R:TW I had my shitty infantry charge in first and get killed, pulling the enemies infantry into a melee. Then I would have cavalry flank them as much as possible. Then finally, the hardcore infantry charge the centre and cause a rout which quickly spreads and the day is yours.
On the demo of E:TW I just flanked round to the left and assembled all my infantry in one big line, firing lots of shots, everytime a single enemy unit tried to flank or whatever my hussars turned them into chop suey. Eventually their line broke and we marched in formation to mop up the remnants.
In some sense it was a little less intense that R:TW. M2:TW was a bit linear though, as depending on which faction you had, you had a core unit which would do everything and you basically just supported that single unit. The most exciting campaign I played was as the moors because they don't have any good units lol (they have camels, which scare horses, but it wasnt a fantastic advantage as I'm used to using spears against horses anyway).
Battles aside, how is the empire management inbetween them? I know you said the screen is very cluttered, but how much micromanagement does keeping all your cities happy take? How good is the auto-option?
I loved the battles in Rome Total War but always ended up giving up on the game in frustration because managing the empire between them was so frustrating...seemed I spent 90% of my time messing around setting tax levels and building public fountains or something and hardly any fighting. Which got very, very annoying, especially as my cities were never happy anyways. Skirmish mode helps of course, but it would be nice to play the campaign without wanting to ragequit after an hour or two...
I'm struggling to complete the land battle on the demo. It seems if I do anything other than run away from the enemy cannons they quickly rout my entire army?
Thanks for the review, though I am a bit suprised. This is the lowest score the game has gotten with the next lowest being 90/100.
Just doesn't seem like the downsides mentioned warrant the score given. Total War games were never mass market appeal type games, with this one it seems like they've tried more so then before to break that conception with less micromanaging and the Road to Independence campaign. From what I've read that was supposed to act as a kind of tutorial for the Grand Campaign, and yet its only criticized for being too slow.
I'll have to form my own opinion after its launched on Steam. The thing I'm most looking forward to other then a new Grand Campaign is the multiplayer options. Steam matchmaking for custom battles and the online Grand Campaign option is to be added in a later patch.
One question, how come it was decided to leave out the most interesting of the graphics options from the review? Stuff like Volumetric fog effects, self shadowing, anti-aliasing and texture filtering are what I really want to know about and what I looked forwar to reading about in a BT review. Not the same old Texture and Water low medium high ultra effects, its pretty much a given what those do and the article itself even suggests that these settings are mostly the same anyways.
I'm gonna guess time constraints cut short the quality of this review which is understandable (blog also mentioned this one slippin by), maybe a update in the future to complete it with all the graphics options and multiplayer aspects.
Originally Posted by CowBlazed Total War games were never mass market appeal type games, with this one it seems like they've tried more so then before to break that conception...
That "mass market appeal" path started with Rome TW. Better graphics with less gaming depth.
Originally Posted by CowBlazed Thanks for the review, though I am a bit suprised. This is the lowest score the game has gotten with the next lowest being 90/100.
8/10 should by no means be a bad score though, especially when you remember that BT uses the whole 1-10 range and not just the 70 - 100 that most other sites do.
As for the graphics stuff - every setting there takes time to do, and it's time that I'm still not convinced is going to be hugely beneficial to the reader without turning the graphics section into a performance section where we test multiple GPUS. That's possible, but it'd take yet more time and still not be totally relevant to most games and readers.
I've been thinking about the graphics stuff in game reviews recently and how it may be possible to tweak it somehow to be more useful, or quicker to turn around. I may write a blog post on it at some point soon to try and gauge the thoughts of you guys. Until then, thanks for the feedback.
I'm wondering if those folks complaining about ship micromanagement found the group and formation commands in the game. You can set up a bunch of ships to sail together in a line, and in other formations too. Individually managing ships weapons can be a chore but I can't see anybody wanting to use chain and grapeshot unless they are in a one sided fight anyway because if you're in a fight you might lose you want to be knocking down the enemy gun count. You might want to use chain shot if you're trying to escape, but again that'd be when you don't have many ships. So say you're in a big fight, maybe with a dozen ships, you can group them into three squads of four, set each group formation to line, and suddenly things look a lot less complicated.
Originally Posted by billysielu I'm struggling to complete the land battle on the demo. It seems if I do anything other than run away from the enemy cannons they quickly rout my entire army?
I went far around them, routed the rest of the Army and then finished the Artillery last
Comments 1 to 25 of 43
Replyjust wished instead of going over all the bad points at the end you would go over both good and bad points
as at the end of nearly all game reviews im left with a negative impression of the game that i cant quite shake off.
Anyways looks like a truly epic game
Im currently thinking of getting a Dual core processor (E5200), 4GB ram and an ATI 4670 graphics card (for a low power HTPC) and im hoping that would be able to play this on medium-High settings
The best thing to do is check the recommended requirements for the retail version of the game.
I've just built a PC (upgrade) for one of my dads mates, with a view to playing this game. It's an e5200, 2GB ram, Pallit Geforce 9600GT and it runs the demo quite happily on medium-high with AA+AF and all the hardware shadows, effects etc turned on
Great, thanks for that, apparently the 9600GT and the 4670 are similarly powerful for gaming (the 9600GT just edges it I think) so the 4670 should be fine for my build (looking for as low power and quiet as possible, but with a bit og gaming grunt!)
Great review by the way, really looking forward to this game :-)
For example, when you ask a unit of foot soldiers to go into a castle after battering down the gate. Then five minutes later you wonder why they're not where you want them to be yet, and then you spot them qued up at one the ladders you used to scale the walls earlier! Silly infantry, why did you choose the slowest way of getting into the castle instead of the quickest, I need you now goddamit, now!
Also, for some reason placing infantry formations inside settlements was a breeze in RTW, but they managed to mess it up in medieval 2. It was awfully cumbersome, so hard to arrange your units into an effective defence once they got inside a settlement.
How are these points in Empire?
Thanks
I've heard the AI is much better
I reviewed it as myself, a hardcore gamer with a general knowledge of history and a familiarity with the series. I loved and devoured Rome and Shogun, but skipped over Medieval. Harry also leant his thoughts and, since he has a history degree and a RTS obsession, he knows what he's talking about.
Was thinking about reinstalling Medieval recently, but this has got me all excited.
Joe's critisms of the world map might not irritate those who're used to the more complex world of Medieval 2, but the critisms of the Sea Battles are spot on. They really are a huge disappointment and the larger engamements quickly become very overwhealming.
The problem is that even when controlling land battles of thousands of units, you're rarely individually managing every unit - you group them into cavalry blobs, musketeer blobs, artillery blobs, and use them as such.
With the ship battles you basically need to micomanage many individual vessels simultaneously to stand a chance, which quickly becomes an exercise in frustration and missed timing as you switch ammo and cue up broadsides. I for one was sorely disappointed by the Sea battles and they have turned what was a "Must Buy" game into a "I'll play it once i've finished Dawn of War 2" game. Which as a huge fan of the total war series is a huge shame :(
Did you play with larger units on M2TW than on RTW?
And the same problem (too much micromanaging nececcary) in the navylbattles.
The line of battleship of the line should be able to sail in a line as a group...and move like that in formation without beeing told so individually.
On the demo of E:TW I just flanked round to the left and assembled all my infantry in one big line, firing lots of shots, everytime a single enemy unit tried to flank or whatever my hussars turned them into chop suey. Eventually their line broke and we marched in formation to mop up the remnants.
In some sense it was a little less intense that R:TW. M2:TW was a bit linear though, as depending on which faction you had, you had a core unit which would do everything and you basically just supported that single unit. The most exciting campaign I played was as the moors because they don't have any good units lol (they have camels, which scare horses, but it wasnt a fantastic advantage as I'm used to using spears against horses anyway).
I loved the battles in Rome Total War but always ended up giving up on the game in frustration because managing the empire between them was so frustrating...seemed I spent 90% of my time messing around setting tax levels and building public fountains or something and hardly any fighting. Which got very, very annoying, especially as my cities were never happy anyways. Skirmish mode helps of course, but it would be nice to play the campaign without wanting to ragequit after an hour or two...
Just doesn't seem like the downsides mentioned warrant the score given. Total War games were never mass market appeal type games, with this one it seems like they've tried more so then before to break that conception with less micromanaging and the Road to Independence campaign. From what I've read that was supposed to act as a kind of tutorial for the Grand Campaign, and yet its only criticized for being too slow.
I'll have to form my own opinion after its launched on Steam. The thing I'm most looking forward to other then a new Grand Campaign is the multiplayer options. Steam matchmaking for custom battles and the online Grand Campaign option is to be added in a later patch.
One question, how come it was decided to leave out the most interesting of the graphics options from the review? Stuff like Volumetric fog effects, self shadowing, anti-aliasing and texture filtering are what I really want to know about and what I looked forwar to reading about in a BT review. Not the same old Texture and Water low medium high ultra effects, its pretty much a given what those do and the article itself even suggests that these settings are mostly the same anyways.
I'm gonna guess time constraints cut short the quality of this review which is understandable (blog also mentioned this one slippin by), maybe a update in the future to complete it with all the graphics options and multiplayer aspects.
8/10 should by no means be a bad score though, especially when you remember that BT uses the whole 1-10 range and not just the 70 - 100 that most other sites do.
As for the graphics stuff - every setting there takes time to do, and it's time that I'm still not convinced is going to be hugely beneficial to the reader without turning the graphics section into a performance section where we test multiple GPUS. That's possible, but it'd take yet more time and still not be totally relevant to most games and readers.
I've been thinking about the graphics stuff in game reviews recently and how it may be possible to tweak it somehow to be more useful, or quicker to turn around. I may write a blog post on it at some point soon to try and gauge the thoughts of you guys. Until then, thanks for the feedback.
I went far around them, routed the rest of the Army and then finished the Artillery last
-
« Previous
-
1
-
2
-
Next »
Discuss in the forums