Rate the game: the initial verdict of Orgahs

[econ21]

Marks out of ten, please. Only vote if you own the full game - I don't want this to be based on the demo or second hand impressions.

I know it's very early days, so the poll will close in a week and maybe we will revisit this question in a month or two.

Summary comments welcome too, although no CA bashing please - imagine folk were rating your own work and be polite.

Edit:: I've just been reminded that juniors can't vote. If they post their rating here, I'll edit the results when the poll closes to include them.


I am not going to voice my own opinion at this stage or Screwtype will bite my head off.

[Whacker]

7 out of 10. Generally I consider myself to be generally forgiving when it comes to this, but it's simply got too many bugs and missing features at this point can't can't be ignored or overlooked.

[Spendius]

7 for me too. The major RTW issue, the AI, has not really been improved, but the rest is all good to me: graphics, the pope, faction and their units...

[Faenaris]

I gave it an 8. There are some little issues to be dealt with, but on the whole, I'm loving it!

EDIT:

Examples of little issues:

- In custom battles, when you buy two Venetian Heavy Infantry unit and you upgrade one of them, there is a reversal in the battle itself. My un-upgraded unit had "plate armour" while the other one appeared to have "heavy mail". I haven't noticed much difference between the two units, I'll go check it out once I boot M2TW again.

- Why do you need a Mason HQ (level 3, 1 per world) guild in order to train Russian Berdiche Axemen? If a CPU manages to get it first, I can't train those nasty shock troops at all. Unless I missed something in the recruiting tree.

- Charges are not consistent: sometimes I can do a fantastic charge and at other times, my units just walk over to the enemy and stab them. The circumstances were the same in both battles.

- Having perfect relationships with a faction after giving some money (went from good to excellent) and being attacked the very next turn is a bit annoying. It is a random "glitch", but I had it happen a couple of times and with different factions.

- Forcing an enemy to become your vasal is still a bit too hard to accomplish (Down to one city and after being beaten a couple of times in a row, they are willing to accept a ceasefire, but not to become my vasal. Maybe they're just stubborn)

- Dismounting knights should have been in the game. It probably won't get added in a patch, but I can dream, ja?

- Assassins are a bit underpowered and aren't worth the investment. It takes a long time to get them to a decent level and you can then lose them on a easy target. Random numbers, aye, but I have never gotten an assassin past 5 stars. And those inquisitors are nasty. Also, it is kinda annoying to lose experience because of one failed mission.

- Inquisitors are killing machines. Low piety characters get the axe REAL fast and having an Inquisitor near your gate is scary. Maybe this is a feature, but if it isn't, a bit toning down would be nice.

- In-accurate traits and triggers system. It's like being a "good farmer" and a "bad farmer" at the same time. I don't know the specific traits from the top of my head, but it would be nice to see traits cancel eachother out.

- Weird lag in sieges. Most have reported it happend because a lot of CPU units want to climb the same ladder. I had it happen when my men were doing the sieging and they were on the ground, withdrawing from the field.

There were a couple more, but my notes are a bloody mess. Now, these are just minor points to me. If CA doesn't fix them, no biggy for me. If they do fix them, the game gets a 10 from me and my assured devotion to CA for years to come!

[TB666]

10 out of 10
The more I play the better the game gets .
Good AI(when the passive bug doesn't appear), smooth performance, excellent graphics and awesome battles.

[Dutch_guy]

Did not vote yet, as I've only just got the game and am busy playing my first campaign.

However, if it's not too much of a problem please also include examples of ''missing features'', ''annoying bugs'' and ''other little details which are missing''. Doesn't need to be a page long list, and we can't force you to do so, but it is a good point of reference.

[Arbaces]

4...

[Darth Nihilus]

I gave it a 10 out of 10. There are a few bugs, but nothing that a patch can't fix. I'm caught off gaurd on how the diplomacy actually works good in this TW game. Its very nice.

[Whacker]

However, if it's not too much of a problem please also include examples of ''missing features'', ''annoying bugs'' and ''other little details which are missing''. Doesn't need to be a page long list, and we can't force you to do so, but it is a good point of reference.

Per Mr. dutch-type-person-guy's request, I submit the link to my write-up as my list of examples:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=72319

I had played the game for about ... 6-8 hours at that point and wrote that over the course of playing, so some of my opinions and whatnaught did change as time passed.

Cheers!

[Garnier]

5 of 10

As of yet at least. Reasons:
No battle AI, bad campaign AI, ridiculously demanding on my pc(which I thought would run it ok on medium... but nope. sparse unit rosters, horrible pathfinding, strange un-epic battles, unbalanced, few to no open field battles, big castles lag and you don't really fight in most places, same as RTW: bash the gate, rush for square, end.

pros: its a total war game, blood dirt and good lighting in battles, cool looking cities and castles, slightly improved diplomacy AI, religion is handled reasonably, a little more complex than RTW.

im not bashing CA, I'm just reviewing the game after a week of playing. The worst part is, they really released a beta which was going to have a day 0 patch, but once everyone bought it, they moved the patch ahead for an unknown period of time(they never said when), and really, they arent bound to finish up this beta game. They will probably release an expansion pack which will cost a lot of money to fix some more problems in the game, and then move on to the next game.

[Lusted]

(they never said when)

They did, the first patch is going to come out in about 2 weeks, it was delayed so more fixes could be included in it.

[Sir Robin]

8 out of 10

There are some issue but, overall, I have been very pleased with it. Somethings, like no Titles, have been a bit disappointing but most, like retrainable mercenaries, has really been a treat.

Will go to a 9 out of 10 if the patch fixes many of the bugs and does not introduce new ones.

[danfda]

I'd like to have gone 7.5, but I couldn't, so it was a 7. Very fun, much better AI (camp map and battle, IMO), beautiful graphics, runs very smoothly on my machine. I still have quibbles about some small things (lack of titles, reaction time for units when they take so goshdarn long to respond to your commands, etc) but overall I think it is a vast improvement over Rome. Still prefer the original MTW, but I like this one too.

EDIT: Ooh, and the lack of unit roster diversity too. Ugh. I can't see why it had to change so much from MTW, but ugh, just ugh.

[chunkynut]

9/10

I love it as I have every other TW game, I find them far superior to other strategy games.

The improvements are fantastic, diplomacy - although difficult - is much improved.

My only gripe is what I had with MTW and RTW that patching will be a slow and painful process and shouldn't be necessary with adequate testing. Anyone remember the units you could get in MTW (like crossbows) when they weren't supposed to appear at the start of the campaign.

If I were to think about a multiplayer campaign then the score may go down but as yet they have never said they would implement one so this is the game.

[IRONxMortlock]

7 out of 10. Generally I consider myself to be generally forgiving when it comes to this, but it's simply got too many bugs and missing features at this point can't can't be ignored or overlooked.

I only received the game last night and I haven't progressed far but I agree with the above statement. 7/10 thus far.

[Akka]

7/10 too.

Could be much better, but there is some points that really put me off :

- Battles are lethargic. Due to huge spacing, weak charges and small units, they aren't of epic scale and they seem to be half-hearted fought. It really brings down the game for me. Units also seems to be made out of paper, they die so easily...

- Unit roster seems just bland. I much prefered the unit diversity of MTW1. Some parts are better in MTW2 (Byzantine with lots of cavalry, yeah), but the generic "militia" everyone get is quite boring after a while.

- The whole adoption rampage. We should be able to recruit plenty of GENERALS, not adopt everyone and their neighbour in the family. It really seems quite absurd, especially in medieval times where blood ties were much stronger.

- As a side-note, the voice acting for pre-battle speech is ugly. The general speak softly in a low voice, while he's supposed to encourage all his men on a whole battlefield...
The roman speaker in RTW was much more convincing.

- Much "fluff" from MTW1 is absent (units descriptions are illustrated with an ugly 3D model rather than the beautiful and immersive drawings ; you can no longer assassinate your own characters ; no early/middle/late eras to start with).


Aside that, the graphics are top-notch, the music is excellent, THERE IS FINALLY THE RETURN OF THE SPECIAL MOVIES YEAH !, the limitation on recruiting is a nice idea, the castle/city difference is interesting, the whole Pope is much better done, the "missions" adds to the background.

Plenty of good things, but some of the ugly flaws really have to be patched to make the game enjoyable.

[Faenaris]

Did not vote yet, as I've only just got the game and am busy playing my first campaign.

However, if it's not too much of a problem please also include examples of ''missing features'', ''annoying bugs'' and ''other little details which are missing''. Doesn't need to be a page long list, and we can't force you to do so, but it is a good point of reference.

Added some to my original post.

[magnum]

Picked 9. Wish I could have picked a 9-. =)

In another post of mine I called it a B+ for the current release. Hopefully any patches will take it up to A- or even A ( a true 9.)

[Djurre]

The cavalry issue makes it rather unplayable to me. With the enemy cavalry being tanks, and mine being babys, every battle comes down to trowing in everything youve got. and waiting for the win.

that sucks. ill vote after they patch it. in 5 weeks or so ;)

[Zatoichi]

Well I'm happy with it so far. Yes there are some niggles, but I've had more fun in the first week with this game than I did with RTW. It's still early, and I'm keen to see what the patch addresses in a couple of weeks, but I'll go for a 9/10 so far.

Some of the issues that people are having don't seem to be impacting my current campaign too greatly, and I can overlook them and enjoy all the goodies and great atmosphere that CA have brought to this game.

[Whacker]

The cavalry issue makes it rather unplayable to me. With the enemy cavalry being tanks, and mine being babys, every battle comes down to trowing in everything youve got. and waiting for the win.

that sucks. ill vote after they patch it. in 5 weeks or so ;)

[Rant mode on]

OK, I'll start off by saying I'm not picking on you specifically Djurre, but I am going to use your post as an example to make a strong point.

Folks, PLEASE vote at this point in time! The community and most importantly CA *must* hear your opinions on this game as it stands right now!

The reason I state this is because of a very very big problem with the gaming industry right now, which is releasing beta/non-gold quality software to the public under the guise of "we'll patch it later." I can remember back in the day, when doing things like this was considered shameful as opposed to the status quo, and fans/gamers would give the publishing houses that did this unholy hell for doing so, and it actually affecting their sales by doing so! Please note that this is my now-firm assessment of this game, it was rushed out the door and in it's current state, is simply not what should be considered "gold" or "release" quality code. Also, I certainly do not blame the developers for this, this problem is usually driven by upper management. Further to add to my case, there are those of us who personally know game/QA testers. From my experience, these people are very bright and thorough, so the odds are that a bug slipped past them is slim to none, the most likely scenario is that the game was knowingly shipped with them. This is, unfortunately, becoming an industry standard.

Not voting and judging the game *now* is completely unfair to yourselves (your opinions must be heard, even if it is very low!), your fellow gamers, and to the businesses that we are giving our money to in exchange for a complete product. Don't sell yourselves short. I firmly believe that it is possible to offer firm criticisim in a professional and constructive manner, whilst still getting across a strong message and not "bashing" the company in general. "Bashing" is one thing, letting them have it for giving you a product that doesn't meet your expectations is another!

An example I will give is Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic for the PC. When this game shipped, it was garbage, the game breaking bugs were so numerous that it was near impossible to play. It took Bioware and LA several months to fix it, but with the 1.03 patch the game truly became what it should have been to begin with, and was finally worthy of the honors, awards, and accolades heaped on it. The point being, it shouldn't have been released that way.

Please vote now and let your opinions be heard!

[Rant mode /off]

[osb0t]

5 of 10

As of yet at least. Reasons:
No battle AI, bad campaign AI, ridiculously demanding on my pc(which I thought would run it ok on medium... but nope. sparse unit rosters, horrible pathfinding, strange un-epic battles, unbalanced, few to no open field battles, big castles lag and you don't really fight in most places, same as RTW: bash the gate, rush for square, end.

I have not noticed any of this.

The battle AI has been fine with the exception of the passive AI which is caused by fielding masses of archers. The campaign AI is far better than Romes, the only issue I have seen is lightly defended castles, I believe this is caused by the AI putting too much value into the defenses of the castle. The performance has been amazing for me it runs better than RTW, I do have a fairly hefty computer but knocking the game because your system isn't up to snuff really is silly.

I have experienced no serious pathfinding problems, the battles have been epic when massive armies clash. The balance seems spot on to me.

If you are experiencing no open field battles, I kindly suggest you seek them out. The objective of an AI army is to capture a city, you can choose to allow them to siege and assault, or you can choose to meet them in the field. If you always sit inside your walls then obviously you will not find any open field battles. I have had on several occasions had large stacks surround a sieging army and then have the defenders sally forth.

Huge cities lag for me, this is simply due to the size of the cities and all the stuff that needs to be rendered.

Siege assaults are always a huge fight if the enemy has garrisoned the town. They fight you on the walls. They retreat to the next ring of defences and fight there, and then they retreat to the center of town and fight at the town square, this is assuming you successfully take each section of the castle.

I have found the AI to be much more capable both on the attack and on the defence. Once the passive AI bug is fixed I dare say that many people will be getting their asses handed to them because the sloppy battle AI of the past 3 games is not even close to as intelligent as it is in this game.

Finally I would like to mention something that I heard mentioned in another post, it has to do with game performance and AI. Someone suggested that the AI calculations in the game are sacrificed to give playable framerate. In all the threads I have read in which someone states the AI is non-existant or terrible, they also complain about the performance of the game. Alternately, in all the posts in which people are praising the AI the game runs flawlessly on their machines. I don't know if this is the cause of this apparent lack of AI, it is however a substaintial coincidence in either way.

[Deathboy]

7/10 for a TW game 12/10 by normal standards.

Only 7/10 for a TW game, because I haven't been completely swept away by the evolution from RTW as I was from MTW - RTW also the bugs everyone keeps mentioning are annoying, the 1 turn to 2 years annoyed me and although it is moddable (and I have) it means that the game is mis-paced, lastly I am annoyed that in order to get a campaign map I have to spend another £15 on a collectors eddition, when this should be standard.

Although it might not sound it but I am generally very happy with the game, and with a little more thought CA could have fixed most of this and made it a 9/10.

[Darkmoor_Dragon]

6 out of 10


Whilst this is potentially the best Total War game too date it has to be said that the state of the code upon release is very poor.

Given the new backers behind CA for the series and the pre-game hype, it is, once again, very disappointing to find that numerous bugs and balance issues have been allowed through into the initial release that really should not have been allowed and are immediately obvious - all to the effect of detracting from the game from one degree to another, culminating in potentially game-stopping features.

Game documentation is also very poor and I personally feel that the fans and buyers of the game have been left to hang out whilst CA take their time with a patch, parts of which are urgent enough to have required a Day1 patch.

Familiar territory perhaps, but even so - a truly great game waits in potential form on my PC whilst I return to play NWN2 instead.

Until that patch, AND assuming that patch fixes a horde of issues, 6 is all it deserves AT THIS POINT IN TIME and in its CURRENT state.

Potentially though? 9+

PS

I am also bitterly, bitterly, disappointed that Suicide Generals have been removed from the game. This regular feature of all previous games and expansions was a constant joy to harangue CA over and its absence is a blow to all those who wish to berate CA for making all the same mistakes over and over again. Will they never learn?!!!

PPS - The "No reinforcements as your CPU is crap" is probably the most badly conceived idea I've ever witnessed in a PC game.
It that can not be turned off, or coded out, then score it as 0/10. Seriously, it's THAT bad an idea.

[IceTorque]

9/10

Gameplay, is fun, challenging and so immersive.
Music, Is outstanding.
Graphics, Simply amazing.
System requirments I still find it hard to believe it runs so smooth on a 4 year old PC.
AI-Battle map, Much improved, and still being tweaked. Getting surprised by the AI hiding units in the trees just never gets old.
AI-Strat map Much improved.
Support Patch already on the way, does'nt seem to be any one patch rule as was the case with previous publishers, thank you Sega.
Multiplayer/Australia Just too much lag, even for a 1v1 game.
General comments Love the way the units move on the battle map, it just looks so realistic. Absolutely love the siege battles now, the big Citadels are very challenging and above all are Fun.

Criticisms, Apart from some minor issues that are already being addressed in the first patch, I have one very big complaint, and that is. This game is too addictive, I can't stop playing.

[Polemists]

I gave it a nine like most people I mean I just love this game so much. The battles are better, I can't count the number of epic battles I've had. Thousand men against a thousand last chance to hold the frontier against other powers. Now sure the AI sometimes still doesn't orchasterate a perfect attack plan, but I think it's far better then rome. I've had ai try counter charges, flanks, encirclement, even bait and lure one time.

Yea inquisitors are a little annoying and having your own pope dosn't seem to quite offer the power I thought it should. I mean early on it's great, like when he sent his army to help me. However second time I got my guy to pope he kept forcing me to go on crusades and hating me lol. Though this may be just because it's later game.

Diplomacy is far better, people finally offer ceasefires and alliances,and it's nice to have princess option when you have a faction hier and new emperor pop up quick.

This game could have been better, anything can be better,but this game rocks in my view, great battles, great campaign, new features, even a new faction in campaign not from mtw(if you dont' know who this is I won't spoil it). Lots of good stuff in here :)

I love assassins, soley for movies, the failed snake movie is classic :)

[FesterShinetop]

BIG 9 out of 10. Best TW game yet and if they put out some good patches it will be very close to a 10!

[econ21]

OK, I hope it's safe to post an opinion without being accused of skewing the poll. I gave it a 9/10. Best TW game out of the box, IMO.

I'm on turn 70 of an English VH/VH campaign and it's really retaining my interest. I'm the most powerful faction but still have not yet reached the "tipping point" you get to so easily in some of the early TW games. The strategic maneouvring feels very like MTW. I have a full stack on a bridge outside Hamburg, but the Danes have parked two stacks next to their fortress. Neither of us wants to attack (I rashly attacked once before, in a similar situation, and it was mutual assured destruction).

All across my frontier, there is a nice tension between trying to push on and trying to protect what I have, all amplified by Papal missions to cease and desist. The economy is also tight - it's a rare turn I can keep each settlement building.

I was starting to feel the battles might be getting easy, then I lost Metz and my King a turn or two ago. With equal odds - and providing I can't just shoot it to death - the AI often inflicts heavy losses on me. Typically a couple of even fights and I'm looking for a second army.

I am especially pleased that the Pope now likes me, after I paid him 7000 florins. I really want to get a crusade off (although I am preparing Rhodes to be a staging post). I guess diplomacy may still work at VH, but you just have to work hard at it.

Ironically, the stuff I am not that keen on is the chrome - the music, the voice overs, the gluey "feel" of the combat (the unit cohesion bug thing), even the graphics don't grab me as much as some of RTWs mods. In this it reminds me again of MTW - forget the superficial stuff, appreciate the gameplay.

[Dooz]

Gave it an 8/10. Great game, but a few bugs and other minor problems keep it from being a 9 or 10. However, I think with a few appropriate patches and other upgrades here and there, it'll easily be a 9. And dear sweet lord, I can't wait to see mods pop up for this one. It will literally be a whole new world. Just imagining EB2 or even medieval realism mods in the vein of EB or RTR, makes my mind explode with anticipation.

[littlebktruck]

I think I'll give it an 8. The fact that cavalry are so finicky is a big problem for me, but otherwise I don't have any serious complaints. Hopefully that will be fixed soon.

I find the decision to make troop recruitment independent of population somewhat curious, but I like it in a "makes my job easier" sort of way (I've never been particularly good at total war games to begin with).