what would you give MTW out of 100?

[vyanvotts]

all u americans are lucky enough to have the game already, after a few days of playing it...what would you give it out of 100?

[Nelson]

After only about 50 turns in one campaign as Spain, I'd give it a 90. I've hardly scratched the surface though.

------------------
COGITOERGOVINCO

[Vanya]

There is no game but MTW. All else is heresy.

So, Vanya gives it a 101.

GAH!

[Nobunaga0611]

I'd say probably a 94, but it all depends on my mood at any given time. So anywhere between a 90 and a 95. I gotta say, CA improved more than just a few areas, and really did their homework.

[Loras]

playin' as the byzantines, i'd give it a 90, it's quite fun. the only thing i'm having trouble with is money, i keep getting this "you are the most rich faction! no one makes more money than ye!" but.....i have negative cash...i think i expanded too quickly, and built up my army too large to support itself, after a take out egypt, i'm gonna hole up and try to get some trade goin. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/smile.gif

------------------
-All knowledge is worth having-

[Mori Gabriel Syme]

I give it a 97. It misses 3 points because I haven't figure out everything yet. http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif

[dancho]

90-- going up to 100++ when they patch it. It's extremely well done-- very ambitious. Maybe a little TOO ambitious. I mean, was it really necessary to give the units different voices?

[1dread1lahll]

A 90-95, Some things are missing from the multi player room.....

[JZ Temple]

I don't do MP, so I'm not aware of any problems in that area. The game runs great on my Athlon 900, very acceptably at 1024x768. It's been rock solid, not a single freeze or CTD. And it lots and lots of fun! http://www.totalwar.org/ubb/wink.gif The only place it loses points is that some items like diplomacy are not explained very well in the manual, and if you didn't come to these forums you could be quite lost.

So I give it a 95 out of 100. It's an outstanding accomplishment, and certainly will make other game developers have to look to it as a comparison mark against their work, in the same way that "Age Of Empires" became the standard in the RTS genre.


[This message has been edited by JZ Temple (edited 08-26-2002).]

[RageMonsta]

AOE was for school girls.

[WhiteSkull]

oh well said i would not buy it but did anyway lol as english i give it a 98.

As the byzantines i givr it a 50.

reason being is trade routes are very UNBALANCEING the byzs start out able to make ships and set up trade routs way faster then the english can and once i set them up i can make from 2k-4k in just trades allowing the byzs way and i mean way to much money.

i would be happy if they nerf trade routes big time. maybe set it up sdo you can only do 2 trade routs per faction?

[JRock]

Low-to-mid 90s. A few minor issues for the patch, and a few options they could have given us but didn't. Still a most-excellent game.

[AvramL]

I'd Give it probably around 90 or so if the game wasn't so damn buggy. As it stands, with constant crashing and corrupted saves I'd go for maybe 70. I sure hope CA patches the game soon, I'd really like to play it properly (and yes, the problems I am experiencing are most definately bugs in the game not poor maintenance/old hardware/old drivers etc. on my comp).

[The Black Ship]

Same as AvramL...in fact if I can't play multi-player the games off my computer in a month.

[Toda Nebuchadnezzar]

hhhmmm well seeing as I have never played it I can't rate it. But so far it seems that we have one or two problems needed to be fixed in the patch, and also we have scores in the 90's which shows its a great game.

------------------
Jaguara-Spoken like a TRUE SPAMMER Toda!

No Fear Legend.

[TenkiSoratoti]

im becoming very impatient now, ome on friday

------------------
"The good fighters of the old first put themselves beyond the possibility of defeat, and then waited for an oppurtunity to defeat the enemy."

[Stephen Hummell]

upper 90's. Should be more historical battles.

[DragonCat]

Mid 90's.

I haven't had a single crash- not so much as a whimper. Its been rock steady. I do have a brand new upper end system running Windows XP Home.

I could wish for a bit better AI - especially in the battles. There is a lot of fidgeting on the part of the troops, esp. cavalry who go in and out, in and out, as they try to decide to attack or run. I can regularly beat the AI at 2:1 odds. 3:1 begins to get dodgy. (And I'm not talking about primarily peasant armies - those you can beat at 5:1)

But I am nitpicking. There is sooo much they have done right. I think I spend at least 5 times as much time on the strategy turns than I did with STW. (total guestimate as I never timed either). The really big plus is that now it is sooo easy to see all your buildings and all your units and to quickly scroll through them province by province without leaving the build screens.

Anyways, time for bed, I've been playing too late.

------------------
DragonCat
. . . on the prowl!

[Shrinkwrap]

Somewhere in the mid-90's. But keep in mind that folks who join a forum like this may be slanted toward liking a particular game, so our ratings could be higher than those in the general gaming community. Still, this is an excellent game!

[DaCount]

Hmmm mid 80's i would say, and this mainly because:
1) AI Naval (no way to beat em)
2) AI Battle screen (could be much better, i've only played like 10 battles, and now can almost always win against ai, oh i didn''t play shogun!)
3) No MP in strategic game (yes people do play games like that on a weekly lan)

[ElmarkOFear]

I have yet to play the single player game, but rating the online battles and lobby I would give it an 80. Since it is no longer a property of EA I add 5 points. Since the MI server has been down a lot recently I give it another 5 points. Which brings us to a 90. After the patch comes out and some of the multiplayer problems (work around to allow more than one player to play the same faction) are taken care of, I may bump it may come close to 100.