PDA

View Full Version : Medieval II: Total War... eh...



Goq Gar
25-02-2008, 16:45
Well, it's alright.

But... what's new? This series was always taking the game a step further with each incarnation. From shogun to Rome, it got better and better, until now... it's pretty much the same game as Rome.

I mean it's pretty much the exact same game! What's new? Okay, it's at a different time, the maps been fiddled with a bit, and theres some new units. I could have done that with a mod in under a day.

And Empire doesn't look all too ground-breaking either.

Why do you do this to me, my little minion friends?:cries:

Kahadras
25-02-2008, 22:26
I'm quite hopeful for Empire TW TBH. Manageable sea battles and a more shooty aproach to battles should mix things up nicely IMHO. The main thing I'm hoping for is the correct balance between cavalry, infantry and cannon and the tactics that can come out of that (things like forcing your opponants infantry to form square by threatening them with cavalry then pounding them with your cannon etc).

Kahadras

Karloth Valois
26-02-2008, 21:00
The 5th game in a series is probably not going to be ground breaking. It will be a new setting, minor tweaks to the ui, maybe the campaign map, and sea battles probably with another few features thrown in. The total war games are close to perfect, once you start debating how they could be better you really get into personal opinion territory where there are just as many people who want the opposite of something you'd like changed. The total war games have a metacritic average approaching 90 (ignoring exp. packs which aren't full games and almost always score lower) between them, so don't expect too much to be changed about them.

Also saying you could have made MII:TW as a mod for Rome in a day makes you sound a bit silly, I know some people that work at CA and they're a great developer.

superknijn
26-02-2008, 21:04
Well, does the series need to be ground-breaking? It's already very good, and throwing in random stuff that's not 'better', just 'new', won't improve the game much.

Just the average sequel-improvement curve (better AI, Graphics, some extra options, UI refinement) works out fine.

CauCaSus
27-02-2008, 13:56
Even if Empires DOES turn out to be Rome w/warships, I will be very happy about it.

Odin
27-02-2008, 17:37
The main improvement with Medieval II was the fact that you don't have units of identical troops any more. It may seem like a small change, but it really helps make battles feel a lot more realistic.

Empire looks like a big change though. Napoleonic battles were rather different in style to medieval battles, and the addition of naval battles is a huge bonus!

emperorpenguin
27-02-2008, 20:45
Empire looks like a big change though. Napoleonic battles were rather different in style to medieval battles, and the addition of naval battles is a huge bonus!


just a minor point but Empire will be 18th century (7 years War, American revolution) not Napoleonic (and yes there were differences between theses two). I can well imagine Napoleon will be the expansion pack for it though.

Gen.Steiner
27-02-2008, 22:24
just a minor point but Empire will be 19th century (7 years War, American revolution) not Napoleonic (and yes there were differences between theses two). I can well imagine Napoleon will be the expansion pack for it though.

Um. The 19th Century is the 1800s - Napoleon to the Crimea and the Franco-Prussian War.

You mean the Eighteenth Century! :p

emperorpenguin
28-02-2008, 00:34
Um. The 19th Century is the 1800s - Napoleon to the Crimea and the Franco-Prussian War.

You mean the Eighteenth Century! :p


d'oh! :o I was thinking "not 19th" and inevitably typed that like a buffoon!

will edit that thanks!

Raellos
28-02-2008, 02:22
An article on IGN says that it will be "set during the period between the early 1700s and the early 1800s".

IGN: Empire: Total War Preview (http://pc.ign.com/articles/815/815233p1.html)

Drogmir
28-02-2008, 03:00
That means Revolutionary War, French & Indian War, and the war of 1812- (you dirty brits :p)

Raellos
28-02-2008, 03:15
I think the Napoleonic Wars will play a big focus in the later part of the game, which is definitely good for all of us wanting to play out the adventures of Horatio Hornblower. Sweet!

Gen.Steiner
28-02-2008, 09:33
That means ... the war of 1812- (you dirty brits :p)

Hey, if it wasn't for us, you wouldn't have a White House. :D

alex03
01-03-2008, 23:42
I personally love Medieval 2 (with some minor mod), and was also an addict to Medieval 1 + VI as well. Never did play Rome.

nagash66
02-03-2008, 00:51
Man Rome is also epic and a must play game (at least in m world)

Inquisitor Maul
02-03-2008, 17:46
From the 1700? Finaly I can play as Charles XII and take the Swedish Empire into it's Golden Age.

The Empire will rule supreme :evilgrin:

Kerrahn
03-03-2008, 05:15
Medieval 2 did add new things and improved old things.

As well as the aforementioned randomisation of units to make them look unique, they added the Papal elections, which meant the game was more than the 'do what the senate tells you too or else' from Rome, and the 'attack the other Catholic again within the next 10 years and get Excommunicated' from Medieval 1.

This meant that I could, as the English, work my way into getting my Cardinal elected, only to then attack the Scottish freely while the Pope turned a blind eye to my corner of the world while I did it (effectively wiping out the Scottish faction, and taking Ireland and a little of France and losing no more than 1 point of standing with the Papacy).

Crusades also actually do something! In Medieval 1, Crusades nearly always failed, breaking down while you were still on the way to the target territory.

The damage on buildings during sieges was quite good too (I once fielded an army of almost only Great Bombards against some Peasants just to level the city), with holes being blown into buildings based on where stones/cannonballs landed.

Otherwise, I guess that not a whole lot more was changed, but there were some considerable differences. I actually liked them.

I am looking forward to Empire though, even though I didn't like the Renaissance era (I've always enjoyed Medieval and Roman history a lot more).

Goq Gar
03-03-2008, 05:43
the 'attack the other Catholic again within the next 10 years and get Excommunicated' from Medieval 1.

but it's still there... only you can make it slightly less bad by spending several hours of your life pleasing the pope.

My only gripe is that it shouldnt have been called Medieval 2. It should have been called Medieval 1.5, or should just have been an expansion pack, seeing as its pretty much the same game except for a few small changes, and making the graphics slightly better. And yes, its only slightly better, because as usual, the game's graphics system (if turned up to full and playing a larger than 1 on 1 unit battle) is designed for some kind of future computer from space which can calculate the meaning of life in seconds, and even then it might struggle.

Anyone who likes big battles MUST turn down the graphics! It's plain and simple! The game even tells you (well me in my case) if you go above 5600 men then the game will lag. A game shouldn't have to TELL you it's going to lag! That is a blatant design flaw!!! (Of course, thats more a rant at all total war games, but what the hey).

If it's going to be a new game, it has to be new, groundbreaking, breaking the mold, expanding in new directions! Otherwise, call it a patch, a mod, or an expansion pack, and dont charge the price of a new game for it.

I WILL ADMIT, however, the randomization of models is a cool feature (which must be turned off in large battles), the destructive buildings are also cool (which must also be turned off in large battles), and the ability to mess with politics (slightly) is rather entertaining (but it's basically a few new special characters, and thats about it. I sent my princess to marry the spanish, and then they still attacked me, although this was advertised as a way to "prevent invasion" it pretty much just spared one of my people from utter ahnialation.

And then the pope is basically the senate with more of an ability to mess with it. Thats not a change, its an alteration.

It is not a new game, it should not have "II" after it. If you turn down all the graphics slightly, it even LOOKS similar to medieval 1! This is, IMHO, another example of sticking the sequel sticker on the original after making the graphics a bit better.

Killgore
03-03-2008, 12:58
i have yet to experience Medieval II but i very much enjoyed Medieval I and Rome

if this is Medieval I with romes city fights ill be very happy indeed, there was no greater joy then braking down the walls of the enemy's citys then turning the streets into a killing ground with my rampaging troops

AGC
03-03-2008, 17:47
A friend of mine bought it, didn't like it, gave it to me to try, and I agreed with him.

Does anybody else hate the graphics? I found that they looked impressive for the first five minutes, very cinematographic, then I realised I couldn't tell what I was looking at.

The individually unique soldiers are a big part of the problem as it means that no two units that are the same, look the same, forcing you to rely on the tool tips to tell you what each unit is.
Another thing is that alll the extra detail on soldiers and terrain, when zoomed out, becomes one big brown blur. Again making it hard to see what was going on. Even something as basic as "Are my spearmen stopping that cavalry charge?" required effort to figure out.

Also the person who decided that the artwork on the unit cards, should be allowed intrude on the strength number, should find new employment. As should the person that did all the Baroque art on all the GUI that makes finding the damn button a game in itself.

But the biggest flaw with the game was the number of things that were added which didn't benefit the game experience.

Why for instance would I want to spend time mucking around with merchants? Is that really more entertaining than recruiting armies?

The whole division between castles and cities felt like a bad compromise. Had they instead modified the Fort building from R:TW (Make them permanent and upgradeable.) it would have been a different matter. But forcing the player to either have a rich province or one that could recruit cavalry felt wrong to me. Especially if you're playing the Russians, who historically didn't build castles. (They built Kremlins instead)

Sorry for the length of this post but I've been chewing it over for some time.

LuciusAR
04-03-2008, 01:58
I think the Napoleonic Wars will play a big focus in the later part of the game, which is definitely good for all of us wanting to play out the adventures of Horatio Hornblower. Sweet!

Hornblowers a ponce! All real men want play out the adventures of Richard Sharpe! ;)

I am really looking forward to this game though I do hope it cuts out the Napoleonic wars. Just because I think the Napoleonic era deserves its own expansion rather than just to be the dying turns of this game. Much as Alexander did with Rome.

Though am I alone in not caring one jot about the naval battles? Naval warfare has always bored me to tears I honestly reckon I'll be auto playing them, just as in the previous TW games.

Elvani
07-03-2008, 16:28
I gasped as I read the title. M2TW is amazing! The first time you watch a connon breach the walls, and sending your halberdiers in while the wall collapses to the screams of men. Zoom in on the combat, and watch theat 2 handed sword slice through the throat of foot knight. Watching your men waiting behind the walls as the gates shake, and as they open, the enemy cavalry getting impaled on the spear wall. The first time you watch a Byzantine firethrower squad brun the first 50 templars as they charge, and of course, playing the game as Scotland!


You can gather that I do like this game.

(oh yes, and the assassins, the tension of whether they killed that cardinal, perfect!)

heretics bane
07-03-2008, 17:13
Will it still have the same hand-to-hand fighting as rome? where people stood there and poked each other?