Tried the demo.
It was pretty cool. I'm a klutz when it comes down to the interface and controlling your armies. Every once and awhile I would see one of my units in a forest not even close to the battle and I did it because I didn't realize when I was still selected on that group.
Could of been a bit more userfriendly about finding out why a group surrended, or what not and maybe have a option to give you a warning when they are about to battle, or giving up.
And it didn't work. Just less severe.
I even tried their suggestion to take the graphics to low, but after an hour battle (still on the Road To Indepedence) with 4 armies, right afterwords it crashes.
I'm starting to not care anymore, so I'm going to stop playing it until the patch fixes the crashes, BSOD and strange freezes. With my luck, instead of fixing the crash to desktop bugs/problems, they will fix some so minute that its almost pointless. I remember STALKER, when first released, the developers did not patch the insane crash to desktop, freezes, extreme slowdown (for a game that was in development for years, you need one beefy computer to run it at full, let alone on low) but instead patched a few little bugs in vacant MP mode.
Ime with you now on this one, my game is now crashing, and whats worse is my game was working 100% fine with no errors or crashes for hours, infact the past few days I played it fine but today its got into crashing after every battle in the campaign mode, which obviously infuriates me...I was having a brilliant time in what is imo a superb game only to have a random and annoying crash ruin my campaign, hopefully as you said, they patch very soon.
can you play battle mode?
Actually decided to buy this in the end. Been playing TW since Shogun but the I've considerably cooled on it as of late to the point where I was not enthused to buy Empire. Too much micromanagement, lack of computer opponents in multiplayer, and frankly the general blandness of the campaign process (logically speaking you strategically win some a hundred turns before it actually plays out, and once you realise this there's not a whole lot left in the game) really put me off.
I know Empire is meant to settle some of those issues. I'm not convinced the entire idea of the campaign mode can ever truly be fixed myself... so... well, I've ordered it anyway. Will arrive in the week.
(The thing is... no matter how you slice it, non-linear campaigns like these ones sound great on paper but in the end they encourage dullness. You need scripting for proper entertainment in the end).
I enjoy the campaign because I like playing as the British, the feel that my enormous empire is expanding in riches and power because of my actions and that other nations are crumbling as well. Destroying the United states for one was a fun factor. Although I am a power hungry player, so taking over huge landscapes for my country are enough satisfaction and the Campaign map in Empire total war is pretty enormous.
It always fizzles in a dramatic sense, though. The hardest part is normally just after the start, and other than the micromanagement nightmare of actually running an expanding empire, the challenges in front of you actually DEcrease as the game goes on. There's no climax, nothing to build up to, no denoument. Just one more fight or turn identical to all the dozens or hudnreds that came before.
I VERY acutely remember in Medieval II where it had become inevitable I would win I was thinking "What the heck is the point of playing on? What do I get? There's nothing more to see, there's no final super mission, just busy work with no value and much pointlessness, all to get a 'well done' message and perhaps a few seconds of cinematic." I'd had misgivings before, but that was really the point where the series fell out of favour for me.
Gameplay wise it is poor, and I loathe to see poor things like that in otherwise well-made games. The campaign mode feels like a setting with no decent objective- they TRIED decent objectives with the first Medieval and failed totally. At least Rome had the 'destroy the Senate and take Rome' thing, which whilst was not all it could be it did at least feel like a decent endgame objective. They could have built on that for MII but they actually took it entirely away! Just hold a bunch of stuff; once you have taken 20 provinces you've taken 100. No good.
Games need an endgame. Look at the Civ series- in theory those games could go on forever but the point of them is that there is a definitive endgame to it.
Of course M2 was not helped by my aforementioned removal of AI opponents thing- the best times I had in Rome was pairing up with friends playing against AI Barbarian hordes. Couldn't do the equivalent in M2. What nonsense.
I dont know, to me being an imaginative person every major take over is like the reward your talking about, every major victory I have on the campaign map in the start of the game is memorable and once my forces have become so powerful that most cannot stand against them theres always my enjoyment of taking over a capital, seeing the burnt out flag of the USA when it tells me that ive wiped them out is more than enough of a reward for me because its an accomplishment ive set myself.
There is an objective....maybe your not seeing the total control of the world through the empire you have governed from the beginning the objective? thats more of an objective than some silly "kill Sultan A in far eastern country B". Your Empire spanning the world as the prime untouched force is the objective.
I think yuo will find me not shrot on imagination, which is precisely why I can see how these things can be done better.
That's only an objective in a literal sense- it is irrelevant in the ganeplaying sense of the word. Like I say, no endgame. And it is great that you get enjoyment out of something that is gameplay empty, but that doesn;t make it good game design in any way and it is still a flaw.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
I think yuo will find me not shrot on imagination, which is precisely why I can see how these things can be done better.That's only an objective in a literal sense- it is irrelevant in the ganeplaying sense of the word. Like I say, no endgame. And it is great that you get enjoyment out of something that is gameplay empty, but that doesn;t make it good game design in any way and it is still a flaw.
What do you mean gameplay emptey? that makes no sense because the whole thing is a game...the whole campaign is the gameplay.
give an example of what you think would be better?
There are plenty of games with appalling gameplay; don't confuse the two.
Rome had the example- a definitve end goal to work towards with unique and rewarding mechanics. It didn't work 100% but that was the theory of it, right there- and playing as a non-Roman faction was always much more boring.
The point is this. Say there was no end date and no space race in Civilization. Now, I am sure there are plenty of people who get a hoot out of destroying all other factions (despite it just taking turn afetr turn of nothing new, nothing different, and no challenge once you are established) and thetrefore would say "Nothing is missing, this game has all it needs."
They'd be totally wrong. The fact is that Civ is MUCH the better game for its endings and the whole space race idea.
Total War has recently lacked this kind of thing. And whether you enjoy it or not, I don't think there's any excuse for the flaws I outline above. If your game gets progressively easier with nothing new to show- that's poor. if the largest challenge for half the campaign isn't strategy or fighting battles, but moving your bloody administrators around a massive map- something that has no inherent difficulty but is longwinded, time-consuming and annoying- it is poor.
It's poor- and that you like it doesn't change that.
Originally posted by Ushgarak
There are plenty of games with appalling gameplay; don't confuse the two.Rome had the example- a definitve end goal to work towards with unique and rewarding mechanics. It didn't work 100% but that was the theory of it, right there- and playing as a non-Roman faction was always much more boring.
The point is this. Say there was no end date and no space race in Civilization. Now, I am sure there are plenty of people who get a hoot out of destroying all other factions (despite it just taking turn afetr turn of nothing new, nothing different, and no challenge once you are established) and thetrefore would say "Nothing is missing, this game has all it needs."
They'd be totally wrong. The fact is that Civ is MUCH the better game for its endings and the whole space race idea.
Total War has recently lacked this kind of thing. And whether you enjoy it or not, I don't think there's any excuse for the flaws I outline above. If your game gets progressively easier with nothing new to show- that's poor. if the largest challenge for half the campaign isn't strategy or fighting battles, but moving your bloody administrators around a massive map- something that has no inherent difficulty but is longwinded, time-consuming and annoying- it is poor.
It's poor- and that you like it doesn't change that.
No you said its emptey of gameplay, thats impossible if the entire campaign is gameplay, if you meant you think the gameplay is poor then fair enough.
err what end goal? destroy the senate and take rome? thats no diffrent than destroying any capital in Empire total war....explain how this is somehow a rewarding mechanic?
There is a tech race in Empire total war, although this one gives you more choice in what route you put emphasis on. And all games of a turn based nature have zero challenge once your established or once youve taken over enough territory.
Empire total war is unique in the fact that the play style of each of the races is not only unique but the decisions you make are influenced by the rest of the world, it gives you the choice to either hold trade routes in the carribean or lose them and keep knocking back the Cherokee in America. These are player set goals, if you require the game to tell you your goals for it to be fun then thats fine but it cannot be called a bad game because of it.
I could turn that around easily and say you not liking it does not make it poor 🙂
Well, moved the graphics to a lower rez, and to medium settings and I played for at least 4 hours non stop.
But then, it crashed twice in 5 minutes. I'm pretty sure it isn't my video cards. It could be the case that the just released patch fixed a few things, but not all the crashes. I haven't got the BSOD yet, so I'm hoping.
Great game though. I'm casually playing it. I tend to build up everything and not attack anybody. As the British, I'm just starting to attack the Cherokees so the 13 colonies can be under my rule. Let's just say I'm too easy.
Very fun game though, well, when I get to actually play it.
Still worthless, as most people say ive read online that the patch did not help the vast amount of crashes people are having, we seem to be at a similiar progress, my British have taken "new france" and Georgia and are heading towards Cherokee territory, with the 13 colonies under hand the rest of the campaign should be easy since my sea and military power are already high.
Unfortunaltey all of this is demolished because as soon as its the Cherokee turn, the battle that they commence crashes my game. Looks like ill have to wait for a patch before I can even continue the campaign 🙁
ah well, ime enjoying the Russian campaign so far