CrispyGamer's honest ETW review

[BeeSting]

This ambitious, gorgeous, amphibious game is as epic as you'd expect. And then some. War is on the cusp of new atrocities and it's as "total" as Total War has ever been.

It is also a terrible mess from start to finish that makes me wonder if developer Creative Assembly has contempt for its fan base and utter disregard for everyone else. But I'll get to that in a moment.

It's easy enough to say "wait for the patch" or "wait for modders," both of which have dramatically improved Creative Assembly's previous games. I can only presume that will be the case here, at which point I look forward to seeing how Empire: Total War turns out. But we review the games we're given, not the games we wish they'll become.

http://www.crispygamer.com/gamerevie...al-war-pc.aspx

[johnhughthom]

I think the negativity in that review is over the top myself. Sure there are a lot of parts of the game that are poorly explained, I managed to figure pretty much all of it myself though, the only thing I haven't been able to figure out is whether the sallying issue is a bug or intended. He complains things like which formations to use in a given situation aren't explained, I'm glad they aren't, I like to figure tactics and the like out for myself. I really don't get why he goes on about bayonet history being explained when teching up but now how they actually work in-game, read the history and it's pretty self explanatory. To be honest this guy sounds like someone who wants the entire workings of a game set in front of him before he plays, if there is nothing to figure out on your own whats the point of playing, generally in history new technologies took time to be effective as people figured out how to use them.

[gollum]

Hello BeeSting - Thanks for the link.

I personally couldnt care less about the lack of documentation. Its been bad as ever, thats where the community, the forums and the long gaming hours come in to make you discover the game like a new lover bit by bit.

But the part of the AI seems not only familiar but actually (and unfortunately) true - not that this wasnt expected. The answer - i am certain - is that CA makes the game difficulty such to accomodate *the new player and the hardcore* as they say, but all hardcores know what that means; that the SP game is actually dead easy. Its no secret that the TW AI is also weak and that CA design decisions make it even weaker by making sure to include a multitude of features it cant use.

However there might be other reasons why the game is dead easy too - for example MTW vanilla that i hold in high esteem was also dead easy because the AI preferences werent enough tweaked and because the rosters of factions completely disregarded Ai performance. With a bit of tweaking though the AI was showing enough teeth to make the SP game enjoyable in its own right.

Its nice however to see a reviewer being honest about the AI and game design issue that are real rather than gracing us with the glorification of the *big* sites, that again showered TW with *the best game ever* descriptions. CA must really take it easy a bit - they ve been making the best game ever every few years now...

[Ordani]

That's spot on -- the key point being this is not their first game. It's not even their first strategy game. They're not new at this. And it's not like these aren't exactly the same bugs that bite them in the ass every time. When individual modders can retune the campaign AI in a matter of days, with no source code access, to correct glaring problems that any amount of playtesting AT ALL would have noticed, it's very hard to not run out of patience with it.


And regarding other game reviews -- when there are like 15 "games of the year" every year, and none of the scoring systems go below "70/100," what they're actually saying is that you need to renormalize that to 0-30 and ignore everything on IGN.

[Dayve]

The game is fantastic, the only thing letting it down is its bugs.

[al Roumi]

i think it's a good review. Above and beyond all else, ETW doesn't feel at all finished. It's only through reading posts on this forum that I learn't about the importance of trade, for example. Something which now seems so basic as to be essential to the game.

I appreciate that figuring things out for yourself is fun, but I also think CA could have done one heck of a lot more to help the player along (if they wanted it) than they have done.

And I completely agree that the worst thing about it is the identical nature of the game's failings with the initial failings of those before: poor AI, unable to play its own game.

And I really can't believe that i paid £10 extra for the pleasure of a handful of special units. Ridiculous.

Obviously, for some reason i still play and enjoy the game :) but I don't think CA should be proud of themselves yet. It's crazy that they've basicaly released (and sold) a beta game.

[MikeV]

i think it's a good review. Above and beyond all else, ETW doesn't feel at all finished. It's only through reading posts on this forum that I learn't about the importance of trade, for example. Something which now seems so basic as to be essential to the game.

I just now read the review, and noted that he was irritated about the same things that bothered me. Great minds think alike.

I appreciate that figuring things out for yourself is fun, but I also think CA could have done one heck of a lot more to help the player along (if they wanted it) than they have done.

The printed pamphlet was fine for getting started. What I'd like, and what I think he was trying to say, is to have the description of the game's mechanics described, in depth, in the game. That's why he made the comparison to the Civ series: think Civopedia.

And I completely agree that the worst thing about it is the identical nature of the game's failings with the initial failings of those before: poor AI, unable to play its own game.

Yes: the key point is that, at CA's 10-year point, E:TW is more eye candy than substance. For those comparing it to EU, good luck with that!

Clearly, they've made some strategic decisions to favor the former over the latter. Their staffing and investments reflect those decisions, and now we have the results. The bottom line is: you get the app they developed, not the one you wish they had.

For those pinning their hopes on the modders, remember this: modders can change the data, and some of the behavior via scripting, but they can't fix code bugs or alter the basic (undocumented) mechanics of the app. Without access to the code, we're stuck with whatever they manage to release, whenever they get around to releasing it. We can whine all we want, but that's just the way it is.