How many people were disappointed with M2TW? I was not, but im sure other people were
How many people were disappointed with M2TW? I was not, but im sure other people were
IN Total War I Trust!!
The Foolish Horseman, previously known as GBB
Where is Gah! here
Names, secret names
But never in my favour
But when all is said and done
It's you I love
i dont know the concept of Gah! please will someone fill me in on it?
IN Total War I Trust!!
The Foolish Horseman, previously known as GBB
I am of the opinion that M2TW is the better game, keep in mind, I'm comparing both 1.1 patched games.
![]()
Last edited by Dutch_guy; 02-03-2007 at 19:40.
fair point dutchy (you dont mind if i call you dutchy right?)
IN Total War I Trust!!
The Foolish Horseman, previously known as GBB
Thank you, and no I do not mind at allOriginally Posted by General Boreaus Brittanicus
![]()
good i did not want to be falsely portrayed as a rascist
IN Total War I Trust!!
The Foolish Horseman, previously known as GBB
Originally Posted by Lucius Julius
LOL LOL
IN Total War I Trust!!
The Foolish Horseman, previously known as GBB
I thought the game was overall better. Albeit getting rich is much easier, but the battles seem so much more engaging to me.
"You must know, then, that there are two methods of fight, the one by law, the other by force: the first method is that of men, the second of beasts; but as the first method is often insufficient, one must have recourse to the second. It is therefore necessary for a prince to know well how to use both the beast and the man.
-Niccolo Machiavelli
AARs:
The Aeduic War: A Casse Mini AAR
The Kings of Land's End: A Lusitani AAR
I voted the "same" option, because both games have things that i like. For example, merchants and princesses in M2 make the strategic map more interesting to me; on the other hand, Rome seemed to have more provinces in areas that interest me, i.e. Tunisia, Egypt, Sicily, South Italy, Greece.
I went with "Same", not based on features and stuff, in that sense it is better than Rome, but because it failed to grab my attention enough to warrant finishing a campaign. Also the AI was not worked on enough for my liking and was not a real challenge.
Rest in Peace TosaInu, the Org will be your legacy
Originally Posted by Leon Blum - For All Mankind
Gah.
#Hillary4prism
BD:TW
Some piously affirm: "The truth is such and such. I know! I see!"
And hold that everything depends upon having the “right” religion.
But when one really knows, one has no need of religion. - Mahavyuha Sutra
Freedom necessarily involves risk. - Alan Watts
Dissapointing, CA's downward spiral continues. With some luck and alot of modding it might become decent, but as always I wouldn't advise holding your breath while waiting for it to happen.
"Every good communist should know political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - Mao tse-Tung
Consider this my write-in vote for GAH!
Medieval 2 is somewhat better than Rome, but for me that's not saying much. While it does show CA stepped up their efforts this time around, it still doesn't grip me the way Shogun and MTW (1) do.
"MTW is not a game, it's a way of life." -- drone
They need to make a RTW 2!!!!
there should be other campiagns like the Alexander campaign not just the Imperial Campaign. For example: Hannibal's Attack on Rome and Julius Caesar's Callic Campiagn for starters.
maybe even some Greek campiagns?
I know i would buy it.
Agree with Martok
Too many campaign features without good reason and previous battle engine settings still missing.
Better than Rome, but that was expected (same engine, need for more sophistication as there is no element of surprise, outcry for battle speeds etc).
Emphasis in blitz strategy.
Winning battles by frontal cavalry charges (!!)
3D map still dissapointing and animations, colors, unit cards and voice work very annoying and childish ("These people will call you king now, sire")
Much more "quantity" and considerably less quality.
Tactical battles a shadow of their former (engine) self.
Tried it at a friend's and decided not to buy now or in the future as the battle engine is missing features that cannot be restored with modding (i had enough of fixing, modding, testing, patching, trying etc with RTW (although certain mods were really worth it) only to find the same good old quick routs occuring in slightly more time than in vanilla).
Can't say i was disapointed - i knew the same engine would be used.
Less spectacle and more tactics will only do it for me (and better battle view and controls - the current ones are incredibly inadequate).
You are racist indeed...you made a thread titled 'M2TW: Disappointing or not' but in the poll all the options are its comparison to RTW except the 'Not Worth'. You think everyone has RTW? What about those who only own M2TW? You are racis...wait...maybe it's more like elitist...or...shall we call it Romist or RTWist...Originally Posted by General Boreaus Brittanicus
![]()
Medieval 2: Total War Guide to Traits and Retinue
"Tenderness and kindness are not signs of weakness and despair but manifestations of strength and resolution." - Khalil Gibran
World War 3 erupted in mid-1960's: NATO - Warsaw Pact Conflict multiplayer Interactive, choose one from several available countries
I've found M2 disappointing but only as much as Rome was disappointing initially.
However, I voted "about the same" as M2 has not engaged me anywhere as much as Rome did initially.
I've found the campaign map has TOO much on it now and looks cluttered and confusing (could be my resolution though).
The depiction of the factions hasn't inspired me as much as M1 did.
Graphically wise - of course, its more polished than Rome and enables you to zoom in for greater detail than Rome did but...what commander actually "commands" at that level?? Not many and certainly not me.
One thing, and one I had hoped wouldn't ruin the game, is Time Dilation: the new "turns" system has really FUBAR'd the quality and pace of the campaign game that I can see. Not only has it abstracted the ages of the Avatars (who I became attached too in previous games) but has artifically introduced Factions that just should NOT be there at all! (Americas). I was worried about this concept when it was first announced, hearted by many people who said that it wasn't a problem and didn't matter/make a difference but now...now I've played it...I'm tempted to take the game back to be honest as for my £30 I'm just not playing it!
Honestly, I've had the game since just before the new year and I have played it perhaps for 4 times in total...I'm just not interested in playing it.![]()
My Steam Community Profile - Currently looking for .Org members I know with NTW for MP stuff (as I'm new to that...lol)
Voted better than Rome. Rome was brilliant I have no doubts, but the effects of squalor kind of made it difficult for me. I absolutely loved the Rome graphics, and I think the M2TW graphics are even better.
I support Israel
I said same as. Both have their merits. RTW was more about the Med while M2 is more about central Europe. Phalanxes were great, and the new units in M2 are great so I say about equal. Once the bugs are worked out though M2 will definately kick ass.
Inhale, exhale
Forward, back
Living, dying:
Arrows, let flown each to each
Meet midway and slice
The void in aimless flight
--
Thus I return to the source.
M2 is better but its too much like RTW. thats the problem.
I voted for the same as RTW. M2TW has the potential to be far greater, and has some very good things going for it, but sadly my system doesn't approve of the advances in graphics, and I can't appreciate it fully. I find battles are a bit more 'fiddly' than before, and also the campaign a bit lacking in finesse. Moreover, there are too many little bugs and issues that irk me enough so much so that I uninstalled the game in favour of Dawn of War Anthology. Well I only have enough HD space for one. I'll reinstall M2TW later, when there's been some more improvements and better mods. Until then it's RTW and DoW for me.
Improving the TW Series one step at a time:
BI Extra Hordes & Unlocked Factions Mod: Available here.
Bookmarks