the most logical NapoleonTW review so far

[gollum]

Originally posted by Asai Nagamasa
The gamespy review seems to be centred around the game apparently not improving enough over ETW?

Indeed. However while some of the reasons are understandable (like the AI), others are not imo, like say the scope of the campaign. There is nothing wrong with a smaller campaign, with more focus, however for these guys there is lots wrong. They always prefer larger scope, and CA has tried to cater for this trend say in the M2 campaign and in ETW. Large scope campaigns tend to over simplify the map in order to represent such huge areas and the end effect is the more factions/more units/non-plausible historically campaign progress.

I can't really say how much NTW improves over ETW because i haven't played the game.

I suspect that through want of oil, the wheel seized up somewhat?

Possibly that or perhaps some of the reviewing sites felt that they overdid it with the eulogies of ETW and wanted to restore some of their credibility after the debacle of the divergeance between reviewer ratings and user ratings on the net. It was very entertaining and satisfying to see that by the way ;)

The best gauge of how good a game is, is to read player experiences, both positive and negative, posted on the forums. Magazine/game site reviews are not worth getting ones knickers in a twist over.

Bingo.