Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 
Quote Originally Posted by Quickening
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.