Even the reviewer played the English.
Printable View
It's the first, the simple, the mediocre choice.
I can't blame him, I began to learn the game on the English too.
We can't all start out the Turks..
I do suspect it has something to do with this game being very popular in England, though.
Strange guy really, rates the "value" of the game 8/10, and then complains a campaign takes a few days to finish :wall:
Seems a reasonable, if not particularly perceptive review. The modest scores seem to reflect the fact that M2TW is not so much of an innovation as, say RTW. This premium on innovation is questionable, as "new" does not necessarily mean "better" and often sequels, being more refined, offer better gameplay.
However, to be fair to the reviewer, I also had the same instinctive reaction in my first impressions - M2TW blew me away less than I expected. It did not have the "wow!" factor of first moving around on the open RTW map and fighting a mass of barbarians with my red-cloaked Romans.
The game probably would have gotten a 9 if he had been winning. ~;)
Reviewers of this kind have only played the game for a week at most before their deadline expires; hence their view of the game cannot be sufficiently deep to determine the true worth of it. That was a major problem with RTW's reviews throughout the world of the gaming press: even the likes of me enjoyed the game for the first two days.
EDIT: MTW got an 8.7 back in the day, too. Is that good or bad? ~;)
Gamespot is notorious for being impossible to get a good score from, so an 8.8 is more than fair to me.
It really annoys me the way he cites the lack of a multiplayer campaign as a mark against the game. CA never said they were going to provide this as a feature, nor is it really feasible in the form most people would want it.
He's right, it's almost as if the reviewer just HAD to find something he even thought of as a nuisance and post it in the review.
Check out the Papal Election screenshot.
Guess the world should be grateful that "Sighvat the Warmonger" wasn't elected Pope!!
:2thumbsup:
Barkhorn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big King Sanctaphrax
According to the M2TW marketing blurb on metacritic.com, it does say this would be included.
I'm sure metacritic staff didn't just make that up off the top of their heads, so where did they get it from if not an official source?Quote:
Medieval 2: Total War boasts an impressive array of new graphical and gameplay enhancements, including the capability for a massive 10,000 dynamic characters to be taken into battle at any one time. On top of this, The Creative Assembly have implemented a fully redesigned multiplayer mode that offers a dynamic multi-battle campaign bolstered by an unprecedented level of visceral combat choreography that reflects the brutality of medieval warfare. Set in the most turbulent and bloody era in European history, Medieval 2: Total War allows gamers to lead their armies across the battlefields of Europe and the Holy Land before discovering the Americas and doing battle with the fearsome Aztecs. Medieval 2: Total War offers a vastly enhanced terrain model to create new graphically rich environments portraying breathtaking cliff top castles and enhanced settlement features that are unique to each civilisation. [Sega]
I personally was very confused reading the posts on this board as compared to that quote. That statement is causing some copies of the game to be sold on false pretenses, unless I am misunderstanding something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barkhorn1x
Hey, Guido the Missionary is the pope in my current campaign. :laugh4:
It is a quote from one of the sages on the screens of RTW that (paraphrasing) "The first casualty in war is truth." If marketing can be considered a slap fight, it is in a way, a conflict...
Al Jabberwock
That's the gist of it. You can review "Resident Evil 4" or some other shooter in a couple of days. That's no problem. You'd have to play M2TW a month to get a decent idea. Notably, this reviewer hasn't won his first game yet and even unlocked all the factions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Baba Ga'on
I think that reviewers tend to reap what they sow as regards game scores. Too often games are reviewed on the basis that x, y and z are great features rather than the a,b and c that are missing. Result being you end up with a better sequel having lower marks than the origional, even though it is clearly better.
There is of course the element of comparison with other games, and depreciation over time. A score is only relevant for a few months imo. Gaming moves on and technology moves on. If someone brought out what was Sim City 1 now, the reviewers would compare it to SC3000, Cesear II etc so it all has to be relative.
I think the Gamespot review dropped a couple of marks because of the high system requirements. This has to be wrong. You must review a game based on the game itself. Will the Gamespot score go up in a year when everyone has more powerful computers and the system reqs are no longer an issue?
The review in PC Gamer though hit the nail on the head for me. This is an excellent game, it's neither too slow or too fast paced in the campaign, and a couple of bugs aside the battles are great.