Verdicts on Medieval II

[Askthepizzaguy]

Being the son of two software engineers and the stepson to a third software engineer, I have to say you cannot blame the game designers or programmers for the small "game breaking" (lol) errors in Medieval 2 Total War. Often a product gets rushed before all the bugs can be fixed. I'm sorry but a game this complex with a whole lot of new features and graphics is bound to have a lot of errors that need to be fixed. Sometimes a decision is made by a company like Sega to ship a playable version of a game before every bug is fixed.

It is easy, during game testing, to completely miss something like the pikes not deploying properly. Honestly, I understand your frustration as pikes played a pretty decent role in the period, but anyone who has so harsh a criticism for the game designers for a bug of that 'magnitude' obviously has 6 years of their own free time to bug test and completely (there is no such thing, by the way) eliminate bugs.

Often time the decision is made to ship a product by a certain date, or else the whole project risks becoming unprofitable or risky to spend so much in development. They hope they can pacify anyone who is upset by the minor bugs (sorry, they are minor... and "we need a better AI" isn't actually a BUG) with patches and so forth.

Having played the game with all of the official patches, I say it works a lot better. And the modder community (Hi Lusted...) with mods like LTC made the game even more enjoyable.

I seem to recall that I played star trek armada II and was disappointed that the battles in space took so little time that you could barely even push the buttons fast enough to do real-time strategy with your weaponry. Someone made an extensive mod which allowed the user to select the power and speed of the weapons and ships. This way you could slow things down and even your basic, basic ships could take damage and still escape to be repaired (if you were quick).

Honestly, this game is awesome. There's always room for improvement. Everyone I know of said Rome Total War was a "much better game"... what utter garbage. All you ever had to do with Rome was line up a full stack of cavalry and charge directly forward, and you won every battle, even against phalanxes. That's how broken that game was. This includes even the Roman basic first mounted unit which was weak and pathetic.

Don't tell me Rome was a superior game. Take away the graphical superiority of Medieval 2 and you still have a game that is ten times better gameplay and AI-wise. Rome didn't have a competent battle AI and the battles were very unrealistic. Everything would insta-rout with a cavalry charge from the flanks, no matter what unit it was.

This is not meant to kiss anyone's butt, but I know with a large degree of certainty that CA was not 'lazy' for not getting around to fixing some fair amount of bugs for this game, because they were likely pushed into launching it too soon by whomever was paying the development crew. And you still got a fine, playable game for your money that a lot of people on here loved. Many of you weren't even AWARE of the pike bug until someone told you and the magical mystique of the game was revealed to you. Like a person who finds out how a magic trick works, you were disappointed your big flashy new game wasnt absolutely perfect. Boo hoo.

Listen, I'm a guy who deliberately tries to break the game by exploiting every single tactical exploit there is. Anyone who reads my threads/posts knows that I snoop every single "broken" aspect of the game and exploit it to it's fullest potential and then I put it on display in big fat full color photos all over this forum to demonstrate exactly how broken/unrealistic the game is.

Much like those who play Super Mario Bros. on the NES and purposefully get hit by enemies at exactly the right frame (without taking damage) and walk through walls simply because they want to showcase what is possible at the extremes of the game, I try to display all the loopholes and tricks. So I am not ignorant of the bugs and weaknesses in this game, more like an encyclopedia thereof.

My verdict is, this game is not only playable and fun, but patched up, even better, and modded to almost it's fullest potential, and still being supported by a new game, Kingdoms. No matter how you slice it, you have to like this game, and if you don't, as a virtual insider to this industry and a hardcore gamer myself, I say you are a whiny, insufferable complainy-pants.

Like those critics who might give Star Wars Episode III a C+ rating, you dwell on what is bad so much that you completely ignore a new classic which is very well done and thoroughly enjoyable. I hope you are miserable and disappointed every single time a new game comes out, because some of you seem to criticize for the sake of hearing yourselves complain. Compiling lists of errors and game weaknesses while never offering any positive comment... I hate to say it, but somebody needs a break from complaining. Why not try something to take your mind off of things. Why not try playing a game to help you relax? I recommend Medieval 2: Total War. It's a fine game, and if you spend so much time complaining about it, you obviously haven't played it with very much of an open mind.

If the game were truly that broken, I would not have played it and I would not have contributed over 500 posts, at least half of them relevant to the game, in this forum.

And if you still don't like it, it's a free country and you have every right to be miserable if you choose to be. So I say good day to you!

[Jason X]

wonderful post pizzaguy

[Askthepizzaguy]

wonderful post pizzaguy
__________________
"Patriotism is the belief that your country is better than any other because you were born there"

Interesting quote. Might you be referring to flag-wavers in the USA who likely have never even been to Canada, much less another country?

(Yes, Canada is a province of the United States. Every Canadian knows this. It's a fact known by even the primitive peoples of Durkadurkistan)

And Mexico wishes it were part of the United States. I think if you held a vote... oh wait. They already voted with their feet and MOVED here!

I think it's ok to love and be proud of your country. But blind patriotism, I agree, is rather pointless.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Let's completely overlook the trillions in war debt, the budget deficit, the trade deficit, the collapse of our industry, our school system which keeps sliding down the international totem pole, a healthcare system which works only if you are filthy stinking rich, the filthy effect we have on the environment, the blatant corruption and ever-more embarrassing scandals in our Congress, our idiot President, a deadlocked and largely irrelevant Supreme Court, an ignorant and blindly partisan electorate, an overwhelming Bible-thumping community which seems to regard every non-evangelical as being Satan incarnate, our bloated and overfunded federal highway system which is a barrel of pork and pork and more pork, bridges to nowhere, Big Digs, grasshopper research in alaska with federal tax dollars (after all, the Alaskan ice-eating grasshopper might be endangered due to global warming... you'd think warmer weather would help a grasshopper... ), bridges funded with federal tax dollars being built ON a Congressman's property, the billions and billions being spent overseas for people who just use that money to kill each other (hello Israel/Palestine, India/Pakistan) while people in this country can't even get a LOAN for college to better themselves and maybe, just maybe, be able to support themselves in their own home and pay taxes on it and have kids which will also one day own a home and pay for my retirement and healthcare costs (it's called INVESTING, look it up in the dictionary sometime, you snakes in Washington!) the complete abandonment of our border security in favor of cheap and exploitative labor, while claiming that foreigners are our biggest national security threat (and removing our civil liberties to prove it), nevermind all the partisan rancor and the talking heads who so consistently contribute nothing intellectual to the national discourse, and idiots like Al Franken and Ann Coulter rallying people who don't have the intelligence to drive let alone vote and get them out to the polling booths so that Joey Six-Pack who beats his wife can vote for Bush (good lord no) or Kerry (see previous reaction).

I love my country, but sometimes I just... wish we weren't totally asleep at the wheel.

Uh guys... not that it matters or anything, but the international community used to respect us, and now they don't. I know it's un-American to point that out, but I only love my country and want it to get better. And how about bringing our troops home, please.

Rant disguised with spoilers for your protection.
Yes, back to topic. I believe the original thread was "verdicts on Medieval II".

For more of my worthless opinions and pithy commentary, you can always drag me into the back room for a fine off-topic debate. I do more than just play games and not deliver pizza anymore.

[Jason X]

not aimed at americans in particular, i just like the quote!

[Askthepizzaguy]

not aimed at americans in particular, i just like the quote!

Although it's tempting to compare the flag-waving in the USA to the uber-nationalist pawns in China, (a true bastion of freedom... see what ultra-partisanship gets you?) I won't because it's off-topic.



And Medieval II rules! I believe I made a fine argument for that viewpoint a couple posts ago.

[Quickening]

And Medieval II rules! I believe I made a fine argument for that viewpoint a couple posts ago.

Im actually surprised by how positive the verdicts have been so far. I asked the exact same thing many months ago and there were maybe a couple of people who had good things to say. I was just curious to know how opinions had changed after the game has been in its final state for a few months.
Then of course there is always the point to be made that most of the people who love the game are too busy playing it to voice their opinions

Im surprised by how much you damn Rome: Total War. It's true the cavalry were overpowered (rather oddly given the time period) but I still managed to have lots of fun with the game. That could be because it was my first Total War so when I read the "old skool" fans talking about how the battles were too fast etc, it didn't really matter to me.
Having since bought the original Medieval, I see what they mean. But I still love Rome.

Now that Ive got Kingdoms Im making an effort to stay away from any Kingdoms buglists because if I don't, it might taint my enjoyment I'll wait for the update and read all the things it fixed and then go, "ah so that wasn't working properly eh?"
Because again, if I hadn't come to this forum, then I would never have noticed the vast majority of bugs in M2TW.


As for patriotism, that is a great quote. I like the old Oscar Wilde quote, "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious".

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Im actually surprised by how positive the verdicts have been so far. I asked the exact same thing many months ago and there were maybe a couple of people who had good things to say. I was just curious to know how opinions had changed after the game has been in its final state for a few months.
Then of course there is always the point to be made that most of the people who love the game are too busy playing it to voice their opinions

Im surprised by how much you damn Rome: Total War. It's true the cavalry were overpowered (rather oddly given the time period) but I still managed to have lots of fun with the game. That could be because it was my first Total War so when I read the "old skool" fans talking about how the battles were too fast etc, it didn't really matter to me.
Having since bought the original Medieval, I see what they mean. But I still love Rome.

Now that Ive got Kingdoms Im making an effort to stay away from any Kingdoms buglists because if I don't, it might taint my enjoyment I'll wait for the update and read all the things it fixed and then go, "ah so that wasn't working properly eh?"
Because again, if I hadn't come to this forum, then I would never have noticed the vast majority of bugs in M2TW.


As for patriotism, that is a great quote. I like the old Oscar Wilde quote, "Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious".

I only damn vanilla Rome Total War by comparison to Medieval 2. And only vanilla. Rome Total Realism was a fine, fine, fine mod. Added MUCH to the game. Much more than RTR: Barbarian invasion did.

I really enjoyed Rome, but since Medieval 2 came out... I could only play Rome if they came out with Rome 2: Total war and made it better than Kingdoms, Lands to Conquer.

I prefer the medieval period anyway. Larger empires in ancient times are unrealistic and doomed to failure anyway due to corruption and distance penalties, which are realistic.

I can't imagine a Gaulish empire controlling Brittania all the way to India and somehow managing to prevent massive revolts and millions of florins/denarii/gold lost to corruption and waste. Even Rome could barely hold her outer provinces and collapsed under the pressure. In medieval times it was actually possible to be a proper administrator of a super-massive empire due to the Feudal system. The Republic was far too bloated and corrupt for that. The feudal system is a very rigid, heirarchical, lean system which concentrates power exactly where it is needed. Superior in medieval times, though I prefer enlightened dictatorship which guarantees civil rights and liberties to rule by the masses or by a malign despot.

Democracy is for the well-read. This does not apply to certain current reigning superpowers who will not be mentioned by name.

[marrow]

Although I agree with you on some points brought forth in your previous post I have to say a firm no to some other points.

You are indeed correct to point out that it is virtually impossible to iron out certain kinks in the game because it's so vast. Very true. I work in IT and I know how much code development can wreck your day.

However, it is plain wrong to advertise certain features and then not be able to implement them after all in the release version (like in Kingdoms) or simply miss some real howlers in vanilla 1.00.

I'm not mad at CA, oh no, I'm just seriously p!ssed off with SEGA for the hash they made of M2TW release and customer support. In fact, if I worked for CA I would be gutted that the game on which I worked so hard turns out only half as good as it could, only because sales & marketing at SEGA want the game released on a certain date and make cuts on testing.

I'm not saying I don't like M2TW, I really do, but sometimes I find myself really disappointed when I realise how good this game actually could have been had it not been so bloody hyped. It's a good enough game, don't get me wrong, but if it's meant to be "a milestone", "an instant classic", "10/10" etc, then even minor bugs are just plain embarrasing!

[Askthepizzaguy]

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Although I agree with you on some points brought forth in your previous post I have to say a firm no to some other points.

You are indeed correct to point out that it is virtually impossible to iron out certain kinks in the game because it's so vast. Very true. I work in IT and I know how much code development can wreck your day.

However, it is plain wrong to advertise certain features and then not be able to implement them after all in the release version (like in Kingdoms) or simply miss some real howlers in vanilla 1.00.

I'm not mad at CA, oh no, I'm just seriously p!ssed off with SEGA for the hash they made of M2TW release and customer support. In fact, if I worked for CA I would be gutted that the game on which I worked so hard turns out only half as good as it could, only because sales & marketing at SEGA want the game released on a certain date and make cuts on testing.

I'm not saying I don't like M2TW, I really do, but sometimes I find myself really disappointed when I realise how good this game actually could have been had it not been so bloody hyped. It's a good enough game, don't get me wrong, but if it's meant to be "a milestone", "an instant classic", "10/10" etc, then even minor bugs are just plain embarrasing!

Those are grounded, fair criticisms I can live with.

Not that my little opinion matters.

[ColIndyJackson]

Gents:

Merry Christmas to all from Canada!!! I hope this finds you and yours.

For openers, I totally agree with what Pizza Guy said. These games are created by human beings, and we human beings do have flaws, believe it or not. I love Medieval 2 for its history (the Middle Ages). The game makers' homework really paid off with this game AND Kingdoms. May their great work continue!!!

Secondly, somebody suggested that the diplomacy in Med 2 should be handled the same way as in EU III. I a turn a BIG on this. This is another reason why I love Med 2 so much--its uniqueness. Tell me, guys, what other game can you think of that has its characters move around by themselves instead of us pushing them around like pieces on a chessboard? I can't think of a single one.

I'd like to be honest with you, though. For the longest time, I looked at the game in the store and never picked it up for two words scared me off--TOTAL WAR. I thought that it was a game where people only fought each other. When I did finally pick it up and looked at it, I found it was right up street as a RTS game, and I like RTS games.

No, I say yes, kill the bugs and fix the errors, but don't change anything that we came to know and love about this game.

To paraphrase Desiderata: " Despite the dreams and broken promises, it's still a beautiful game!!!!"

Live long and prosper, take care and thank you kindly!!!!

Sincerely yours always,

Indy.

[Akka]

It's the only TW game I only finished one campaign, and the only I one where I won't get the expansion.

It had the potential to be the best of all, but the hardcoded limits of the battle engine made it so that the "anti-blob" made the battles un-playables and un-enjoyable, and wasted all the eye candy.

If I had knew beforehand, I wouldn't have bought it.

[Quickening]

It's the only TW game I only finished one campaign, and the only I one where I won't get the expansion.

It had the potential to be the best of all, but the hardcoded limits of the battle engine made it so that the "anti-blob" made the battles un-playables and un-enjoyable, and wasted all the eye candy.

If I had knew beforehand, I wouldn't have bought it.

The only thing that really annoys me in that respect is when you tell a regiment to charge and only like five guys run forward as if the rest were playing some cruel trick on them

[Viking]

I am mainly dissapointed with the game, as the diplomacy is in many aspects more or less broken. The battles has nice graphics but drains too much CPU power. In kingdoms I can play on higher graphics settings and yet run the game smoother.

That said, I liked the game, but they really....need to work on diplomacy.


Edit: Not to mention the hopeless thing it is to set up army positions inside a city.

[Goaswerfraiejen]

I am mainly dissapointed with the game, as the diplomacy is in many aspects more or less broken. The battles has nice graphics but drains too much CPU power. In kingdoms I can play on higher graphics settings and yet run the game smoother.

That said, I liked the game, but they really....need to work on diplomacy.


Edit: Not to mention the hopeless thing it is to set up army positions inside a city.

Those two things are huge factors for my own disappointment. And while diplomacy certainly improved a little in the vanilla game (and more so in mods), the inability to properly deploy troops inside cities is largely responsible for my abandonment of the game. There have been many other factors, but that one is huge, considering that so much of the game revolves around sieges. While Rome's malleable deployment system had some downsides (like pikes poking through walls/gates), it was pretty damn good--especially by comparison. Far as I can tell, in-city deployment is at its worst in the whole TW series.

[Slug For A Butt]

Now I'm going to disagree with previous posters concerning favourite time periods, I find M2's time period lends itself to a lack of unit diversity. I prefer the more distinct units from the late Hellenic/early Roman period in the game.
Give me chariots, phalanxes, screeching women, head hurlers, elephants, legions with testudo, war dogs, arcani, sapping etc. We have naptha to replace head hurlers and elephants remain, but the rest of the unit roster is a bit bland for me combined with the unit non cohesion which is really my biggest problem with the game now it has been patched.
Micromanaging a simple infantry charge to get more than a few of my men into battle just isn't fun for me at all. If they are remaking Rome I just hope they'll wait for the next generation game engine they design because this one is broken. The AI seems to be given more battlefield options in M2TW but it just frustrates the hell out of me trying to get my men to fight instead of just cheerleading the first few guys as they battle alone. I play RTW much more than M2TW and the insane infantry sppeds are unrealistic in RTW, but not as annoying as the basic inability to get a whole unit to fight or having cavalry struggle to hunt down routers in M2TW.
Both games are boring once you have built a bit of an empire, but from me it's a thumbs down for M2TW . It's the last TW title I have bought, and it will be the last until the future titles are either in the bargain bucket, targeted towards strategy instead of eye candy or invasive software free (or any combination of the above).
Each to their own. That's just my opinion.

[redriver]

may I pitch in my opinion on RTW super unrealistic speeds? am I the only one to think it's not true? what exaclty is unrealistic with regards to RTW infantry movment speed?

I find it quite on par with real life given the time period and troop composition.
look at it this way. the heaviest units or RTW(urbans and phalanxes) are barelly more armed/armored than the lightest fully upgraded M2TW units like spear militia or levy spearmen/swordsmen.

the same goes for battles in RTW. some say it's over way too quickly.

I think it's slower than in M2TW for exaclty the same reason as in example with the movment speed. simply put your average medieval solder will have way more armor and protection than any roman era one. that actually means they should last longer even if they don't know how to fight...

so this is how I test it. I make a custom battle in RTW with best heavies they got to pit against each other(full armor upgrades/no experience) and do the same thin' in M2TW only this time I use the lightest fully upgraded infantry and pit 'em against each other. guess what? both battles will actually last for some time before it's all over.
alas, in RTW not all factions have great infantry and the unit rooster diversity is far greater as well...

[Akka]

the unit non cohesion which is really my biggest problem with the game now it has been patched.
Micromanaging a simple infantry charge to get more than a few of my men into battle just isn't fun for me at all. If they are remaking Rome I just hope they'll wait for the next generation game engine they design because this one is broken. The AI seems to be given more battlefield options in M2TW but it just frustrates the hell out of me trying to get my men to fight instead of just cheerleading the first few guys as they battle alone. I play RTW much more than M2TW and the insane infantry sppeds are unrealistic in RTW, but not as annoying as the basic inability to get a whole unit to fight or having cavalry struggle to hunt down routers in M2TW.

So true, so true...