Review of Empire for those who like historical correctness

[batemonkey]

Pedantic but i like it:

http://www.wargamer.com/article/2688...pective?page=1

[Daveybaby]

I gave up reading after the first 10 million words or so, with the primary thought in my head as follows: "i sure hope that guy never gets the chance to design a game".

[anweRU]

I read it to the end, and enjoyed it. He did a great job point out the screw ups CA did in making a "historical" game, and pointed to other games that got it right.

As for Daveybaby, and other players who think CA got it right, here is what he says about CA, SEGA and you:
"I hate to admit it, but in this case I think SEGA and The Creative Assembly may have actually gotten this part of the game right, at least from a business perspective.

Most Americans have a minimally passable knowledge of the American Civil War and World War II, in part thanks to movies like Gettysburg or Saving Private Ryan. However, try to discuss the War of Spanish Succession and you’ll probably get that “deer in the headlight” stare. "

and at the end:

"OK, now I get it, and if Empire: Total War is any type of success it’s because SEGA and The Creative Assembly got it as well. Bravo, and I sincerely mean that. The animation, exquisite landscapes and other graphics are superb, and believe it or not, I continue to play the game just to watch this part of the contest unfold. My bet is the majority of gamers who pick up the game will agree, as they will not be infected by the blemish of prior knowledge of the period. For the rest of us, think of the game not as history, but rather, historically inspired. Doing so will allow you to enjoy a game that is a real hoot, both competitive and eye pleasing.

This game is Hollywood History at its finest, so shelve Churchill’s bio of Marlborough and enjoy!"

I'm not as detailed obsessed about the reviewer, I couldn't care less about the uniforms (though it would be nice if CA actually implemented true historic units and uniforms). I'm more bummed out about the strategic-level AI issues, which hopefully the next couple of patches will fix.

And yes, I still play and enjoy the game.

[abdecken5]

"I honestly don’t think game play and exciting competition would have suffered had SEGA and the The Creative Assembly designed this portion with history in mind. I"

I agree with the reviewer. If people are ignorant of history then why not make the game accurate, rather than ahistorical, after all non of the casual players will not even notice.

Dam I hate how everything is dumbed down these days...

[FesterShinetop]

For the rest of us, think of the game not as history, but rather, historically inspired. Doing so will allow you to enjoy a game that is a real hoot, both competitive and eye pleasing.

I think this sums it up nicely. It IS a game, not a history documentary. If I want historic facts I go read Wikipedia... (that was a joke)

Eeehm... or a history book ;)

I think the best a game like this can accomplish is to interest people in the time period and make them read up on it more.
I really like the game the way it is, the setting is more or less historic and after that I go out and write my own history!

[DisruptorX]

Hey, Wiki is great if you quickly need to know the date of a battle or treaty, or whatnot!

The game obviously is a simulation, and we'll get some mods that properly flesh it out. Nothing is so glaring as say....Egyptian chariots and ironskinned axe horsemen.

[Discoman]

Who's to say that any book under the sun is completely accurate?

Anyway I applaud CA's attempts at combining fun and history to an extent. I still like playing historical mods though because they add balance and the historical strengths of nations. I mean if anything mods like RTR prove that you can have a fun game and at the same time be historical so it makes me wonder CA doesn't attempt it? I'm aware they have time constraints but it'd be nice.

[johnhughthom]

I stopped reading at this: "while I noticed the British continued to put troops on ships which then disappeared into the Atlantic, only to reappear in North America."

[AussieGiant]

He certainly has a unique view on things and is clearly well educated regarding the period of history in question.

However he does show some substantial gaps in knowledge. In "The Tactical Game" section he bemoans’ the behaviour of infantry forming a square in front of his cavalry which then got shot to pieces by his artillery at range...

...please note this is classic tactical behaviour and the infantry did exactly what it should have. Dying by round shot in your 2's and 3's (on average) is a lot slower than mass destruction by cavalry charge. This at least gives you time as the infantry commander to try and find a solution.

As for game play and not having the massive French fleet and port available at the start of the game...well I'm pretty sure the CA guy's know about this, but for game play reasons decided not to make one nation clearly a super power over and above everyone other faction with regards to naval power.

That would make the AI predictable and leave very little room for anything other than total domination of the seas by France at the start of every single game. Which I'm totally sure would get them crucified here on the boards.

I do see his point regarding the graphical opportunity missed. PC games really are cutting edge technology when it comes to graphical presentation. CA could have done a one for one mirror of the time period and had a total winner on it's hands, and I'll certainly defer to his position on this as he certainly knows his stuff.

[Daveybaby]

As for Daveybaby, and other players who think CA got it right

I dont think CA necessarily got it right, i just think the guy is a fatuous bore who can't understand the difference between a game and a history lesson.

Maybe i should log onto amazon to review some history books and complain that there isnt much gameplay and the graphics arent very good? "Nothing i do makes any difference, the end of the book is always the same".

[Didz]

Well I suppose it depends if your interested in history.

Personally, I am, and I've been a wargamer since the age of thirteen when I bought my first set of wargame rules for the 'American Civil War' from the Wargames Research Group.

My views are therefore biased as from my point of view if you are going to produce a game and sell it on the basis of its portrayal of a historical period then you ought to damned well get it right. To do otherwise is incompetant and an insult to the intelligence of your customers.

Its really as simple as that. However, I am constantly dissapointed that with all this technology at their disposal game designed still can't reproduce the most basic elements of a historical period accurately.