Log in

View Full Version : PCGamer Review



Sir Robin
09-17-2004, 02:13
Picked up the latest issue today at Waldenbooks and found its review to be pretty good.

It looks like the reviewer did take a good play thru the game.

Most of it we already know of course but a few things caught my eye.


The initial campaign begins with you selecting between three available Roman factions - the House of Julii, the House of Brutii, or the House of Scipii. All of the factions are essentially the same, and none of them offers an overt advantage - although Scipii has a city on Sicily, which makes it easier for you to launch an immediate attack on rival factions.

Perahps Julii has rebel owned cities to its immediate north?


I still wish that you could "force produce" military units for an extra cost (after all, a totalitarian dictator can "enlist" anyone he wants), but there are ways to artificially increase your population.

He mentions that one of these is enslaving the population of a city after its conquest. Adding population to other cities you already own. Which of course allows you to recruit more units in them.


The great thing about this end-game scenario is that not only must you contend with the warring Roman factions, but you must also deal with any others that might seek to take advantage of the power vacuum by attacking you. It's truly a Herculean task keeping everything running (and I mean that in the best possible way) - managing multiple wars, all while keeping diplomatic channels open.

Good to know that during the endgame the surviving non-Roman factions don't just take a break.


If you don't have time to embark upon the challenge of conquering the entire world, you can choose a quick-game option where you're tasked with eliminating a specific faction, like the hated Gauls. Combine that with the option to replay the main campaign from 12 different sides (the other nations become playable as you make contact with them in the main Roman campaign), and to play through 10 capsulated historical battles, and even grand strategists will see that Rome offers a massive amount of replayability.

I thought you had to conquer a non-Roman faction before you could play it?


As much as I loved the previous Total War games, the one thing that always drove me up a frickin' wall was their weak diplomacy. You had only limited options, and they played themselves out automatically - you had no say in what tou wanted to offer another faction.
In Rome, this scheme has blessedly changed. The diplomacy is now extremely robust, and you can offer alliance and trade agreements, bribe armies and cities, and sue for the right to move your military across someone else's territory, among other options.

He does mention some wonky things from the AI but that is his opinion. Hard to say when what we think the AI should be doing is right, wrong, or a hiccup in the code's decision tree.


To say I loved every minute of Rome: Total War is a tremendous understatement. For my money, it's the ultimate strategy game. Not only does it effortlessly combine turn-based strategy with raucous real-time warmongering, but it delivers them in a package that is accessible and easy to play. Right now, it's definately the leading contender for Strategy Game of the Year.

I considered it a pretty descriptive review by William Harris.

By the way, they recommend a P4 2.8GHz, 1GB Ram, 256MB 3D Card system.
Required is a PIII 1GHz, 256MB Ram, 3.5GB HD, 64MB 3D Card system.

Blodrast
09-17-2004, 02:29
thanks for sharing ;)

- pretty steep requirements...i thought they said it would be "accessible"...the required ones are ok, but the recommended ones seem a bit too steep to me, especially for the kind of game that RTW is supposed to be. But anyway, we'll wait and see. People have reported running the demo on crap machines successfully.


I thought you had to conquer a non-Roman faction before you could play it?

so did I. And I think they made that pretty clear in several interviews. You can play'em after you beat'em (or win the campaign, without necessarily having beaten them yourself - some other faction may have killed them). But they definitely said that you had to beat 'em to play 'em unless you finish the campaign.

- nice touch that one about enslaving the population of other cities to artificially increase your military ranks...

cool. roughly one week to go, eh ? ~:cheers:

Magraev
09-17-2004, 09:37
Thanks for sharing - I think I'll go buy the mag today though - I need something to keep me going until the game is out.

Longasc
09-17-2004, 13:10
I would wait for online mags and user opinions.

The hype in Gaming mags and the lack of depth of the reviews is only suitable for addict kids and fans, not for "cracks" like .org players!

lars573
09-17-2004, 17:50
thanks for sharing ;)

- pretty steep requirements...i thought they said it would be "accessible"...the required ones are ok, but the recommended ones seem a bit too steep to me, especially for the kind of game that RTW is supposed to be. But anyway, we'll wait and see. People have reported running the demo on crap machines successfully.


Your not taking into account PC gamers way of getting those system specs.

By the way, they recommend a P4 2.8GHz, 1GB Ram, 256MB 3D Card system.
This quipe is the system it took to get 100 FPS with every single graphical setting set to the max and the highest resolution possible. They probably called CA and asked what kind of rig it would take to max out all the details and that was it.


Required is a PIII 1GHz, 256MB Ram, 3.5GB HD, 64MB 3D Card system.

This system will run the game with the details on medium. Most games these days have 4 graphical levels low, medium, high, and my-manhood-is-determined-by-how-much-money-I-spent-on-bleeding-edge-computer-parts-computer-nerd-uberhigh.

Blodrast
09-17-2004, 18:01
Your not taking into account PC gamers way of getting those system specs.

This quipe is the system it took to get 100 FPS with every single graphical setting set to the max and the highest resolution possible. They probably called CA and asked what kind of rig it would take to max out all the details and that was it.



This system will run the game with the details on medium. Most games these days have 4 graphical levels low, medium, high, and my-manhood-is-determined-by-how-much-money-I-spent-on-bleeding-edge-computer-parts-computer-nerd-uberhigh.

~:joker: ROFL, then I guess I must be pretty low on the manhood scale ~D
But I don't think I'll personally play the game at high settings anyway, so that's ok..

Crazed Rabbit
09-17-2004, 18:27
What score did they give it?!?!?!?! I need to know!

Sounds so good so far. Of course, I'm gonna wait for the mods before I buy the game.

Crazed Rabbit

Stuie
09-17-2004, 18:37
What score did they give it?!?!?!?! I need to know!

Sounds so good so far. Of course, I'm gonna wait for the mods before I buy the game.

Crazed Rabbit

Think they gave it 92% (according to a thread a .com).

Sir Robin
09-17-2004, 18:56
Naturally I forget to post the score. ~:confused:

It was a 92%...

lars573
09-18-2004, 00:20
~:joker: ROFL, then I guess I must be pretty low on the manhood scale ~D
But I don't think I'll personally play the game at high settings anyway, so that's ok..

I know, me my rig will probably be able to run on high. At least I hope so.

Quietus
09-18-2004, 03:41
User reviews are infinitely much more indicative of how the game really is.

It is fairly easy to root out the biased user opinions (For or Against) the game. You just have to filter the good, honest review.

Gamers play the game because they wanted to while professional reviews aren't always that way.

The PC Gamer basically said: diplomacy is "robust" but the diplomatic AI is "wonky", then the game is now more "accesible" so it is "easy to play" (with a "robust" diplomacy??).

:dizzy2:

Spartiate
09-18-2004, 19:55
I have read several RTW reviews from PC GAMER,most of them by a gentleman by the name of Ross Atheron.He is a long time player of both STW and MTW but admittedly is more of a fan of the campaign map element than the real-time battles.He seems to be of the opinion however that this game is going to be the best thing to ever hit the strategy gaming scene and that we will not be dissappointed by it.
As a person who reads PC Gamer i have noticed that they slaughter many games in reviews who are deserving of it.My point being that if they say it's great then i'm going to believe them.
Lets all hope i'm right. ~:)

ah_dut
09-18-2004, 22:31
indeed... a worthy prayer

mambaman
09-19-2004, 00:33
yeah thats always been my experience of PC Gamer too, which fills me with great encouragement i have to say.......roll on release date!

CrackedAxe
09-19-2004, 01:28
I wonder if those recommended system specs are what they deem to be necessary for big MP games (4v4,large units). I certainly hope not.

lars573
09-19-2004, 15:24
^Those probably are the spec for 4v4 multiplay with largest unit sizes and not have any lag. PCgamer or any magazine of it's type will over inflate the system specs needed for the game. I've seen it done for many games and that some readers wonder what the hell was up with the uberhigh system spec when they got it to run fine on much less. The reason is simply advertising, alienware buy tonnes of ad space in PCgamer and usually on the next page from the review of the latest game where they said it needs and bleeding edge system to run it you'll find an ad for just such a system from alienware. I'm not being synical it's just marketing :furious3:

Spartiate
09-19-2004, 19:31
I have to agree with you there LARS.I saw a review in PCGAMER a while back on which PCs were best for gaming.Alienware won it by 1% i think,but the runner up was called TINY and to my eye had a slightly better spec and was something like 600 smackers cheaper(even more maybe).PCGAMER said the only reason they gave the award to Alienware was the cool case.
MARKETING. ~:rolleyes: