New MTW2 Q & A at Gamespot

[LordKhaine]

It really has become quite a chore to read the totalwar.org forums. Just people repeating the same things over and over. MTW was great, RTW sucked. CA are messing up MTW2. Putting Aztecs into the game is a bad decision! not enough mention of improved AI! etc etc etc..

Would it be too hard to wait a little before judging MTW2? Its release date is a long way away, and no-one here knows remotely enough about it to judge it. I for one like to see more than a few gamespot articles before I make up my mind.

And I thought *I* was cynical

[econ21]

I've got to admit, I have some sympathy with LordKhaine. This thread risks spiralling into anti-RTW and anti-CA negativity. Please keep it constructive and try not to damn a game that has not even been released yet .

[TB666]

I agree with LordKhaine.
We have too little info on MTW2 to start bashing it already.
People complain about that they don't talk about the AI so they talk about it in interviews and on the .com they have said that they are working hard on the AI and people still complain.
CA can't do anymore then that so be happy.
RTW was a great game and I have no doubt that MTW2 will be great as well.
And I'm happy that they are trying new stuff like the Aztecs and Turn system.

[Samurai Waki]

I just want this game to be awesome, and perhaps my premonitions and anxiety are getting the better of me. Don't judge a book before it has been written I suppose.

[Incongruous]

Meh RTW WAS! A DIY project, nuff said.
MTW, had its faults but had enough give to make them hardly noticable at times. RTW had a massive trapdoar in the middle which gave in every time you walked over it.

I suppose people are just upset that CA are going down the track that leads to such abominations as AOE

[player1]

I don't think anyone saw this coming.

1530 - 1080 = 550
550/225 = 2

so each turn will be 2 years.
And they will capture summer and winter. how will they do that?
random turn length? anywhere from 1 to 3 years

I guess you have summer 1530, winter 1532, sumer 1534, etc...

The point is to have different seasons in the game, but also not to bog down game with too many turns like in RTW, when pretty much all game finish in 100 to 150 turns.

It would just suck to plan game for 900 turns, and never pass 1200AD, because you already conquered the world. It would make pointless most of addons in the game, like gunpowder or america discovery.


P.S.
I pretty much wanted to make mod like this for RTW, so that acutually there is a pressure to get to August empire before his at time. Or to make it gameplay balanced to have Marian refors around 110BC.

[screwtype]

I guess you have summer 1530, winter 1532, sumer 1534, etc...

When I think about it, was there actually any point to the changing seasons in RTW in terms of gameplay? I don't remember one, at least none that had any kind of real impact on play. I think one or two units got a bonus in snow. And fatigue was supposed to be higher, but fatigue had so little impact it may as well not have been included at all.

Seems to me it was mainly included for a bit of graphic variety. But the seasons ought to have an impact on gameplay, not just be there for show.

And BTW if it's going to be "summer 1530, winter 1532" I can't see why it couldn't be "spring 1530, summer 1532, autumn 1534, winter 1536" and so on...

[Dutch_guy]

You know I really was hoping for the return to the one year a turn idea.

I liked how that made it possible to play ( talking about Medieval here ) from early to late and enjoy every bit of it.
The season system in Medieval wasn't a s good as Rome's - with a clear turn based season variation - but it still had it.

As others have said in this thread, in Rome it was labouring to play more than ...say 200 turns. Normally you'd have won the game by then.
That really was a shame considering you had about the same amount of turns left to play.

I therefor hope they make each and every turn , all 225 of them, worth playing.
I hope they manage to find the balance between dragging the game on to far and finishing it to fast, the middle way would obviously be best.

Seems to me it was mainly included for a bit of graphic variety. But the seasons ought to have an impact on gameplay, not just be there for show.

Yes, would be great if they'd be able to make the weather and the seasons count.

In Medieval the weather played some role of importance - archers were less effective in the rain, camels got a bonus in desert - sand - storms and so on, still however it wasn't enough.
In Rome I missed the importance of the weather it played no role at all, archer armies could still decimate barbarians in the rain, even fire fire-arrows in the rain, certainly that would have been hard to say the least.

It would be a very good thing if in the next total war game CA would be able to make weather more important than it was in Rome, and even in MEdieval, because I think CA have - for lack of a better word - the power to do so.

[econ21]

When I think about it, was there actually any point to the changing seasons in RTW in terms of gameplay? I don't remember one, at least none that had any kind of real impact on play. I think one or two units got a bonus in snow. And fatigue was supposed to be higher, but fatigue had so little impact it may as well not have been included at all.

I see your point, but I did notice movement on the campaign map was more limited in snow. That could have a real effect when you were stretched - e.g. trying to respond to multiple threats[1].

BTW: I think fatigue may have had big impacts in RTW battles. I suspect that is one reason battles with the AI often seemed unchallenging - they were tired or exhausted by the time they reached your lines. As a result, they routed easily.

[1]Edit: after posting this, I started to doubt myself. I may be rather confused with the EB mod, where the seasons have a major effect on campaign mobility and you are encouraged to hunker down for the winter (through traits and other scripting).

[player1]

And BTW if it's going to be "summer 1530, winter 1532" I can't see why it couldn't be "spring 1530, summer 1532, autumn 1534, winter 1536" and so on...

More production time?
Maybe for MTW3?

[BelgradeWar]

Maybe the game will have it's flaws, but I fell in love with graphics instantly...

[Voigtkampf]

First of all, I would like to ask all the participants of the MTW2 threads to restrain from mindlessly bashing CA or Rome or the oncoming MTW2.

That said, I speak in whole honesty, while I will not tolerate any rude approach to those mentioned above, I will by no means support the policy of mindless worship either.

I have loved Shogun and I have adored Medieval. Rome? I thought it would be on top of them all, and it was...but only graphic-wise. Gameplay went to hell, IMDHO of course, in comparison to MTW or STW.

Now, I remember the time preceding Rome and our lively debates here at the Org; I have gone estranged with one of my best virtual friends here at the Org when he became more and more aggressive towards CA and Rome for reasons of, some of you might remember, historical accuracy of the game. One part of the Org, including myself, was prepared to put gameplay ahead of historic accuracy; the other part was not willing to recognize any quality in Rome whatsoever until the game was completely accurate in terms of historic facts regarding nearly everything. Things got quite serious for a while, but at the end we were equally disappointed, since Rome was neither equal in gameplay to Medieval nor was it as historically accurate as the people now behind EB project wanted it to be…

The point is, I have defended Rome, and gave it the benefit of the doubt for a long time. I will not extend the same courtesy to MTW2. I have written a large announcement about it in the computer magazine I write for, not saying one bad word about it. My expectations are, however, far from positive. Why? Well, you know the old saying, fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me? Exactly.

Nice graphics sell. As a person who runs a construction company, I go for all the projects that bring money, if I want to express myself I write or engage in various hobbies in my spare time. It is unlikely to expect that the major efforts of the CA staff will be invested into an area that will impress a rather small amount of the buyers instead being directed into neat graphics engine and other “ahhh” issues that sell good.

First of all, the epic battles of Medieval will not reappear, since we will have the real-time map of Rome instead of province map of Medieval. That will bind to it a large number of features that were inherent in Rome, and not in Medieval (hence, once again, a legitimate inquiry whether this is Medieval 2 or, actually, Rome 2), altering the gameplay to the worse TW experience possible instead of pointing it to MTW. We might easily have dozens of rebel hunting battles instead of those epic encounters with thousands of soldiers with several forces converging at one point in a province. MTW is unrealistic? Yes. More fun? Yes, yes, yes!

The programmers obviously once again concentrate on graphics; thousands of unique looking soldiers, attack and defense moves… Oh, yes, and AI will be improved. No, again no naval combat (too hard to make), but as someone pointed out, this argument loses at its credibility after hearing it for…what, eight years straight now? Instead, naval battles will be “tweaked”… Oh, dear…

So, all in all, I have a bad feeling about this, and it is legitimate to speak out that way. It is true, you cannot judge the book before its been written completely, but knowing the writer, his previous work and what the latest book is about, I’d say you have a fairly good chance of hitting the spot damn close.

[Martok]

You're eloquent as usual, Voigtkampf. I can't really find a single thing I disagree with there.

I want Medieval 2 to be a good game; I want it to kick *** and blow me away. But given the direction the TW series has taken with Rome (and so far what we've seen of Medieval 2 has done little to alleviate my fears), I find it difficult to be optimistic. To quote my esteemed colleague here:

fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me

Couldn't have said it better.

[screwtype]

Yes, would be great if they'd be able to make the weather and the seasons count.

In Medieval the weather played some role of importance - archers were less effective in the rain, camels got a bonus in desert - sand - storms and so on, still however it wasn't enough.

Weather effects were there in MTW certainly but in STW they were really important. A wet battle day could really ruin your strategy. And boy, when it rained, it really rained! Those thunderstorms were just fabulous.

Fog also played an important part in STW, which made it easy to get ambushed, and snow exhausted your troops much more quickly.

All that was pretty much missing from RTW which was rather disappointing. I think I've read somewhere that weather will play a more important role in M2, I hope so because it added a lot of flavour to STW and it could do the same for M2.

[Dutch_guy]

Weather effects were there in MTW certainly but in STW they were really important. A wet battle day could really ruin your strategy. And boy, when it rained, it really rained! Those thunderstorms were just fabulous.

Fog also played an important part in STW, which made it easy to get ambushed, and snow exhausted your troops much more quickly.

All that was pretty much missing from RTW which was rather disappointing. I think I've read somewhere that weather will play a more important role in M2, I hope so because it added a lot of flavour to STW and it could do the same for M2.

I've never played Shogun, though I have heard of it's excellent weather features.

I agree Screwtype I hope it plays a more important role in M2TW too.

[ivoignob]

It was a bad time because there was crap title after crap title released until the devs finally came to their senses and realised that FMV would not make great games.

Please excuse me. What is FMV?

[screwtype]

Full motion video.

[BelgradeWar]

Please excuse me. What is FMV?

Full Motion Video.

[Dead Moroz]

Voigtkampf, your post is almost exactly my thoughts. That's what I would like to say but could not because of lack of eloquence and bad knowledge of English.

But one thing I disagree.

Nice graphics sell. As a person who runs a construction company, I go for all the projects that bring money, if I want to express myself I write or engage in various hobbies in my spare time. It is unlikely to expect that the major efforts of the CA staff will be invested into an area that will impress a rather small amount of the buyers instead being directed into neat graphics engine and other “ahhh” issues that sell good.

I'm designer and know that nice cover is at least 50% of product's selling. But I'm sure that buttress on cool cover only is wrong marketing policy for company which wants to stay on top of certain business for long time. You can make money quickly by making vivid but empty products. But it's just a matter of time when your products become needless for everyone and you'll be kicked out of business by more diligent competitors. I'm sure that even in our era of primitive click-fast games such "more successful" competitors will appear soon or later. There are some of them even now, unfortunately they are not good enough yet. But it's just a matter of time. Quality is always quality and people will choose better product among similar vivid looking goods. So the question is just how long CA plans to sell their TW series.

[Crazed Rabbit]

I think good 3D campaign map AI can be done. Heck, it was done in Lord of the Realm II in 1997. The AI in that was driven and aggressive. It's armies always had a purpose.

What I think CA needs to move too is a real time campaign map, ala HoI w/o provinces or Knights of Honor. Have the AI concentrate solely on sitting in cities defending or attacking, not wondering stupidly like in Rome.

I am apprehensive about this. The same campaign map as Rome, the forced abstraction between cities and castles (Constantinople does not exist!), the great emphasis on graphics and the lack of any new content (ship battles are too hard!), all make me anxious.

I want gameplay dangit, I want great AI that will be relentless and cunning, I want an interactive campaign map where I can burn the farms of my enemies in raids (something the LOTR II AI would do to you, too), I want to place new cities and design castles, and have months long sieges with constant trebuchet firing, and good diplomacy. I don't want a prettier version of Rome. I want a better version of MTW.

Crazed Rabbit

[screwtype]

I think good 3D campaign map AI can be done. Heck, it was done in Lord of the Realm II in 1997. The AI in that was driven and aggressive. It's armies always had a purpose.

Yup. No sending you little dribs and drabs of enemy units in *that* game.

What I think CA needs to move too is a real time campaign map, ala HoI w/o provinces or Knights of Honor.

I am completely opposed to a real time campaign map.

Have the AI concentrate solely on sitting in cities defending or attacking, not wondering stupidly like in Rome.

Yes, that alone would make make the AI a lot more formidable.

I am apprehensive about this. The same campaign map as Rome, the forced abstraction between cities and castles (Constantinople does not exist!), the great emphasis on graphics and the lack of any new content (ship battles are too hard!), all make me anxious.

I like the sound of improved graphics and animation, but am not too happy to hear about "finishing moves". I like the fact they have said they are working on improving both the campaign and battle AI. I don't care about ship battles.

What does bother me a bit is the division of provinces up into "military" and "commercial" or whatever they are calling it. It sounds a bit cheesy to me, which suggests that the economic model is once again going to be silly and shallow.

Ultimately though it's how well the concept works and how well the game plays that matters. My guess is that you will only be able to build military units in castles now, which should make the game at least a little bit tougher. But I agree, I don't like the concept much.

I want gameplay dangit, I want great AI that will be relentless and cunning, I want an interactive campaign map where I can burn the farms of my enemies in raids (something the LOTR II AI would do to you, too), I want to place new cities and design castles, and have months long sieges with constant trebuchet firing, and good diplomacy. I don't want a prettier version of Rome. I want a better version of MTW.

Crazed Rabbit

Well said. It's interesting that so many of us here seem to have similar ideas about what we want to see in the game. I sure hope CA are paying attention. But perhaps we will have to wait for a future instalment of the series for that really in-depth economic model that many of us want to see.

[Powermonger]

I am completely opposed to a real time campaign map.

I would not be for any realtime campaign map either. What I enjoy about the MTW 2D turnbased map is that it is has just as much features to keep it entertaining without it becoming overwhelming or overly complex. Sure there are things that could be done to make management of agents or armies more efficient but mostly it is pretty good.

I don't agree with making the campaign map more complex or the inclusion of more features requiring greater levels of micro-management, I think any features that require more complexity should be kept to the tactical battles and leave the campaign strategic section alone. We already spend alot of time at the campaign screen, making it even more complex to move armies around or just controlling your empire just introduces more frustration.

That is why I am partial to the provinces and the 2D map, it was just an approximation of my empire and made getting to battles that much easier. I didn't have to worry about my stacks chasing enemy stacks all over the place or having them placed precisely on a particular geographic feature. Actually, at one time I thought that where you placed your attack stack dictated the type of terrain you would fight on, I spent a lot of time fretting over where all my armies were situated in their respective provinces.

What I am getting at I guess is that I felt in MTW that the strategic and tactical sides of the game were balanced against each other, with the former being fairly streamlined so to make getting to the real fun of the latter much simpler.

[Voigtkampf]

Thank you for your kind comments, Martok and Dead Moroz.

But one thing I disagree.

I'm designer and know that nice cover is at least 50% of product's selling. But I'm sure that buttress on cool cover only is wrong marketing policy for company which wants to stay on top of certain business for long time. You can make money quickly by making vivid but empty products. But it's just a matter of time when your products become needless for everyone and you'll be kicked out of business by more diligent competitors. I'm sure that even in our era of primitive click-fast games such "more successful" competitors will appear soon or later. There are some of them even now, unfortunately they are not good enough yet. But it's just a matter of time. Quality is always quality and people will choose better product among similar vivid looking goods. So the question is just how long CA plans to sell their TW series.

Peculiarly, I do agree with you, Dead Moroz, on this comment. You will find that we do not disagree at all.

Without going into too much debate on the percentages, I do not refer to merely the cover of the game (as I suppose you are well aware of), but to the general appearance of the game in comparison to the less flashy component; gameplay. Strengths of Rome are perceived to be within the graphics engine, which is true. It is sad to see that the developers are focusing their attention on these aspects instead of concentrating to bring back the spirit of the TW series into MTW2; a conclusion which can safely be drawn from the comments made in various interviews, where the emphasis is clearly, once again, on graphics instead of gameplay.

Now, even if the respective developers in Australia are indeed focusing on the gameplay instead of the graphics and huge battles, their interviews leave the impression that this issue is merely of secondary importance. Hence, the following conclusion is logically inevitable; they are either indeed focused on graphics, because they are under impression that this is the way to sell big numbers of copies, or they have focused their attention to regain the favor of community by offering improved gameplay and revitalized TW experience, but still put the emphasis on the nice graphics because they feel, once again, that this is their winning card.

You can make money quickly by making vivid but empty products.

Indeed, you have found a perfect description for Rome:TW.

I'm sure that even in our era of primitive click-fast games such "more successful" competitors will appear soon or later.

Actually, would you not agree that with this comment you admit that shallow, yet pretty games go better on the current market than those with deep, immersive gameplay? And that because of the market itself, where the major buying population are kids in their teens that indeed care far more for graphics then for the intellectual depth of the game, the mainstream of developers adapts to circumstances and where the games like AoE will never die out. Not that I dislike AoE, on the contrary, but TW and the rest of strategy games nowadays are like chess and checkers to me.

But it's just a matter of time when your products become needless for everyone and you'll be kicked out of business by more diligent competitors. ( ... )There are some of them even now, unfortunately they are not good enough yet. But it's just a matter of time. Quality is always quality and people will choose better product among similar vivid looking goods. So the question is just how long CA plans to sell their TW series

I have revealed my stance and honest opinion (and, frankly, it tears my heart that it is so) that the Rome is the worst sequel of the series. The quality has diminished significantly in comparison to Shogun and Medieval, yet the form itself, graphics and the engine, have improved. But I do not prefer form over substance. I remember that the some of the prettiest girls I dated were both uninteresting, shallow and, perhaps the most important thing, lousy lovers; my most interesting girls were, peculiarly, ordinary looking girls that nobody would turn around for, but they were funny and intelligent and most passionate when I’d take them into my hands. That is also the difference between Rome on one side and Medieval and Shogun on the other.

I have reviewed Rome when it came out, as well as I have reviewed BI; I have complained about the dropping qualities of the game and my editor thought he caught me in an inconsistence, an obvious self-contradictory statement.

“Hold on a sec”, he said leaning over his glass of beer, crossing the hands on the bar table and smirking viciously. “You gave that game 95% review, my friend, and here you come and complain on how bad it is. Guess you have messed it up there, am I right?”

“Au contraire, my dear Watson, not in the least. On its worse morning, with a hell of a hangover, halfblind and with one hand bound behind its back, a TW title will kick ass from any other strategy game, Civ series included! Cheers!”

I’ve said it then and still think its so; TW has no serious competitor, only few clones, and even as bad as Rome is, there is still no game with greater tactical and strategy finesse on the current market that can compare to it. Not by far.

But we spoiled TW community fans have not come to measure the quality of a TW game by other strategy games, but to those of TW itself; once also a league for itself. May it be so again.

[Ignoramus]

Truly the TW series has has dropped in quality, and all I can hope is that they stop the rot for M:TW2.

I have not played Shogun, but Medieval: Total War was an eyeopener to me. The graphics weren't the best, and the immovable artillery did annoy me, but all in all, it was a great game. The strategic elements of the battles and the campaign was an exciting game experience that had me hooked for ages.

However, when Rome came along, it was a different story altogether. At first, I enjoyed the improved graphics and the new campaign features. But after a while, all the shiny stuff washed off. The campaign became plain and boring, frequently becoming one-sided. The battle AI was appalling. Not only did the AI generals, who according to the latest rules in warfare, charge headlong in enemy phalanxes as a simple way of committing suicide, they also had a soft spot for recruiting rubbish, such as peasants and militia, instead of heavy reliable troops. Now as for diplomacy...

Rome was a major disappointment because it could have been so much better. If CA had not rushed to get the game in time for Christmas, many people wouldn't be wondering why their Christmas present wasn't what it was cracked up to be.

Barbarian Invasion was pretty awful. It was enticing for a bit, however, I found that it felt like I was playing an arcade game, instead of a reasonably historically accurate strategy game.

That's my two cents.

[screwtype]

I don't agree with making the campaign map more complex or the inclusion of more features requiring greater levels of micro-management, I think any features that require more complexity should be kept to the tactical battles and leave the campaign strategic section alone. We already spend alot of time at the campaign screen, making it even more complex to move armies around or just controlling your empire just introduces more frustration.

I don't think the amount of time one spends tweaking the economy in RTW is due to too much complexity. The problem is the badly designed interface.

In my opinion, you could add quite a bit of complexity to the campaign without adding to the micromanagement at all. In fact I think it would be possible to add more complexity to the map and actually cut down on micromanagement at the same time. It's all in the implementation.

Just one approach by way of example: take a game like Imperialism II. It has a far more complex economy than RTW but it's way, way easier to manage. Why? Because instead of having separate production for each and every province, all the production for your entire economy is pooled together so you only have five screens to manage everything, instead of 30 or 40 or 50 screens for each separate province as in RTW.

That's just one way of doing it - there are many others, limited only by one's imagination. The RTW interface is just plain clumsy, and that's what causes the frustrating amount of micromanagement.

That is why I am partial to the provinces and the 2D map, it was just an approximation of my empire and made getting to battles that much easier. I didn't have to worry about my stacks chasing enemy stacks all over the place or having them placed precisely on a particular geographic feature. Actually, at one time I thought that where you placed your attack stack dictated the type of terrain you would fight on, I spent a lot of time fretting over where all my armies were situated in their respective provinces.

Yes, this is a valid point and I felt much the same way at times.

However, I still think the more detailed map has more potential than the risk-style map, it just needs to be better realized. One major improvement would be to the campaign AI, obviously. But there are plenty of other things that could be done to make it a more immersive experience.

What I am getting at I guess is that I felt in MTW that the strategic and tactical sides of the game were balanced against each other, with the former being fairly streamlined so to make getting to the real fun of the latter much simpler.

I disagree with that. I've always thought the campaign side of the TW series was too simplistic. And as I said, with a bit of thought it should be quite possible to create an economic model that is both more complex, more realistic, more immersive and more fun as well as having less micromanagement - or at least, with micromanagement features that are actually immersive and interesting rather than a chore.

But apart from that, as I've said elsewhere, I also think CA should provide an adequate automanage option so that those who don't want to tinker with the economy don't have to.

[doc_bean]

I’ve said it then and still think its so; TW has no serious competitor, only few clones, and even as bad as Rome is, there is still no game with greater tactical and strategy finesse on the current market that can compare to it. Not by far.

And that's why I, and probably most people on this forum will buy the game anyway, even if it is more like Rome than MTW.

I do wonder what all the publishers are wasting their money on these days though. I'm sure a well done 'similar' game could do quite well.

[spanakoryzo]

Though I'm new to posting I'd like to point out the game immersion factor. One of the things I truly loved in STW (no, not its historical "accuracy") was the fact that it really felt like feudal Japan. I believe that many other seasoned SP players will agree on this. When MTW came out things had already changed. I enjoyed playing the muslim factions far better than the catholic ones. The reason? They possesed a far more immersing "environment" than the rest of the factions. Unfortunately, that didn't work for e.g. the English or the Spanish. In RTW there wasn't even that "muslim" involving factor. It was a serious drawback - for me at least. I will of course buy MTW2, I just can't help myself. But I really am not optimistic about the whole game feeling issue. All the latest steps are in the wrong direction. We'll just have to wait and see.

[Servius]

Personally, were I a game reviewer, I would not rate a game based on how it compares to current competitors. I would try to take into account all the games I've ever played, and how awesome they were relative to the levels of technology at the time, and use that as my measuring stick. I think you should measure a game by how close it came to its potential.

For me at least, comparing what RTW was (okay graphics, bad gameplay) to what it could have been (snazzy graphics, above-average gameplay), I would have given it a 75% or 80%. RTW in 2004 was not the equivalent of C&C in 1995 or Warcraft III in whatever year it came out. IMO, RTW in 2004 was not as good as MTW was in 2002 or STW was in 2001. If you only hold game companies to the standard set by their current competitors, then even kinda crappy games can get a good rating, especially if you're rating at a bad time for the genre, when little serious competition exists.

Anyway, MTW2 will be what it will be. Since CA is not asking our advice, and as such we have no impact on the game's development, we have only to decide, once it's out, whether it's worth $50 or not.

[screwtype]

Though I'm new to posting I'd like to point out the game immersion factor. One of the things I truly loved in STW (no, not its historical "accuracy") was the fact that it really felt like feudal Japan.

Yes, STW had great atmospherics. I remember when I first picked up the game on someone's recommendation, I was thinking "feudal Japan - what a boring subject for a game!" But the minute I started playing, right from those first simple little snatches of traditional Japanese music in the opening screens, I was hooked.

Strange how they've never been able to recapture a similar degree of atmosphere in any of the subsequent games.

[econ21]

Strange how they've never been able to recapture a similar degree of atmosphere in any of the subsequent games.

Well, part of what is strange is how they pulled it off with STW. I think it was partly the excellent voice work, partly the ninja videos/throne room and partly the music.

In MTW, we lost most of that chrome - although as one poster said, the Islamic music was rather immersive. (There may be a degree of Western bias here - we find Japanese/Islamic stuff exotic and more intriguing than more familiar cultural references). I don't really fault MTW for it, though, because the substance was so greatly increased over STW, a loss of style was an acceptable cost. (It was interesting the way MTW units still shouted "Hi!" in the manner of STW when you separated them from a stack on the strategic map - CA really did not spend a lot of time on the chrome.)

In RTW, I never really felt that much like a Roman. A few cutscenes, better voice acting or something might have gone a long way. I suspect part of the problem was that the "chrome" was applied to the two advisors. But while they may have helped the newbies, they did not really help you get into character (they were explaining basic game mechanics afterall). If the advisors had been more in character - e.g. warning you when a diplomat approached that his people were enemies of the senate etc - they could have been fun. I really liked the squabbling advisors in Civ2 (Economic advisor: "Let us build market places, so the peasants can trade in needed goods" Military advisor "No! Build city walls, Sire, NOW!").