Quote Originally Posted by Simon Appleton
It is a very substantial game - the amount of factions you can play; the length of the Imperial campaign (how many hours to win? I'd guess 40+); the incredible variety of units and army styles (phalanx, legion, cav, horse archer, chariot, barbarian horde etc); the excellent tactical battles; the impressive strategic map; the decent building/economic game; the gorgeous graphics; the historical simulation etc etc. There's easily five times the content of most rival strategy games - in some cases, I'd say 100 times more content.
And content makes a good game? Sometimes it's the simple games that are the best - often for that very reason.

A lot of the bugs are just a consequence of the compexity of the game. Ditto the AI limitations.
Then maybe they shouldn't have made it so complex? Complexity for complexities sake is not a good idea. And excessive complexity that you can't properly account for (ie, you end up with too many bugs/flaws) is not good either.

When people damn the game, I'd like to know what contemporary strategy games they consider so superior. I'm certainly not playing any.(I'm reduced to playing shooters and replaying oldies like Jagged Alliance 2.)
And why would we be limited to contemporary games? And why should we have to name something better? Are you suggesting if your only choice for food is sour grapes, spoilt meat or stale bread, that because you happen to pick the stale bread, that makes it good? The fact that you'd choose to go back and play something like JA2 would seem to indicate you don't actually believe that, so why impose that limitation on us?

And if the say STW or MTW, I say they are just spoilt!
So if we've had a couple good games to play, that's all we are allowed? We now have a quota on them? We aren't allowed to expect a company to continue to put out the same quality games?

Bh