-
I posted a bit here way back in the Shogun days (amazing to see my login still works) and had completely forgotten about M:TW until a friend told me that it was out. Forgive me for posting my first impressions (along with everyone else) but I got to start somewhere. Also, part of my reason is to get a better understanding of the game design since I hadn't had any time to catch up.
I loaded up the game last night, cranked up the settings and then played through all of the tutorials. My impression, from the tutorials, is that it is just like Shogun only in a Ye Olde Way motif. The tutorials did not touch on any of the increased depth that the manual talked about. Also, one of the things I posted frequently on at totalwar.org about Shogun was the lack of customization from the campaign map. In other words, you were stuck with the exact same map and setup. This basically eliminated replayability, imo.
In M:TW, I see historical battles and historical campaigns. The battles are a carry over from Shogun but it appears that the campaigns are nothing more than a few battles strung together (I believe).
Espionage is the same in both games, however, the addition of alliances through marriages (are there any way to form alliances???) is perhaps something new, if it really means anything.
Perhaps the most significant new feature is trade routes and a quick look around shows specialized resources (which is the key). I'm wondering how important will trading be beyond the obvious monetary gains?
The building and tech tree is the same methodology which is one of my disappointments since I really wanted to have the decision-making element of allocating money to research which would open up resources, units and buildings (ala Civ2). But since everyone wants to talk about the cool battles, that's where the money is and while the campaign game is improved, it still gets short-shrifted.
While my first impression(s) seems negative, it's not really. I came from the camp that the turned-based campaign is the most important and fun part of the game, with the added bonus of seeing battles fight themselves out (which Civ and EU do not do). But I am in the minority and I accept that. I am anxious to start playing because of the variety of nations to play, along with the three different starting dates and the exciting option of winning by 'points' instead of solely by conquest are the hook, esp. for replayability.
-
Come back after you play through most of a campaign. I sure you'll determine that the SP Campaign is vastly improved and may very well be the equal of the Battle game.
CA needs to devise a new demo, that reflects the Campaign Game and Strategy Map. Otherwise people will continue to not get the "full" impression of the game.
It's also, IMHO, why so many TWers are so focused upon the battles and MP, while giving the SP Campaign short shrift. The demo attracts the, "fight, fight, fight", RTS types and fewer of the Civ2/3 and RRT2 types.
Also, if CA were to apply the time and resources to developing a MP Campaign (even a limited version), Total War would EXPLODE!! and probably revive the PC as a game platform. It would be the best game ever produced.
-
Quote Originally posted by ToranagaSama:
Come back after you play through most of a campaign. I sure you'll determine that the SP Campaign is vastly improved and may very well be the equal of the Battle game.
[/QUOTE]
That is why I am anxious to play, because I suspect this even though I didn't get this feeling from the tutorials (and from the demo, from what you said).
The rest of your points are right on. While I think the tactical battles are very well done (and I hate RTS clickfests), that really is the selling point because most feel it's cool to watch little sprites mashing into each other. For me, as evident when I played Shogun, that got old and now I am glad there will be more things to focus on in the campaign map.
