Medieval 2: Total War Q&A at Gamespot

[kris]

Scary as it is, I agree with Susan. They're just doing a retread of Medieval simply because it would take less work than to do a whole new setting. They're only adding what, popes and part of North America along with the requisite new units, right? It's much easier to do that rather than have to do all new art and setups for say, Colonial Era and such.

I rather this was true and that they concentrated on other aspects, but I doubt it. It seems they will waste most their time doing new graphics to make the game play like a movie. I can't for a second believe they will use the old medieval strategic engine, so especially in that part they wil redo stuff...

 

[Jon]

I hope they concentrate on improving the quality of ai in the real time battles. tbh I would take Rome 2 if there was significant improvement in this area.

 

[Greatatlantic]

The only Total War game I've played was Rome, and I have these complaints.

1) Real Time Sieges were a terrible affair to have to go through. Clipping issues were a real problem.

2) The unit cutoff was far to small. 20 units was the most I could have in an army, but I might have 500 units not including home gaurds. This forced players to have to fight out their battles piece meal instead of truly epic encounters with real stakes. That, and it made specialized counter units a heck of a lot less viables as space was so limited.

3) Cavalary were overpowered for the time period. Obviously cavalary charging into a spear wall is suicide, but back then charging into infanty sides wasn't that much of an improvement as the stir-up hadn't been invented to give cavalry offensive power. Plus, horses were really expensive back then and reserved only for the nobility who could afford it, but in the game a cavalry unit only cost twice as much as a regular infantry unit.

If they could correct these things, I'd be a happy camper.

 

[kingcomrade]

According to the ancient greeks, the amount of wealth it would take to feed and raise a horse was forty times the amount needed for a single family (which was basically one infantryman, as almost all landowning Greeks were part of the citizen militia of whichever city they were from). Where I read this, it was in reference to how anti-democratic and aristocratic that setup was. Greek armies were all about the common man standing with his common man and such, no priviledged assholes on horses were wanted.

 

[LlamaGod]

theres alot of retarded ass units like gladiators and war dogs, too.

Rome was their entry into stupidity. They're going for the big dollars instead of the good gameplay now and that means making their games pretty and retarded and appealing to the common idiot instead of the fanbase they had built with Shogun and Medieval 1.

Then they hold out features that should've been in Rome to begin with for a $30 expansion, make a console action game and now they've scrapped any setting with a slight notion of a niche and instead went for a Medieval 2, because Middle Ages is the most "appealing" (read: most bought) setting and because they can make stupid medieval movies and fancy graphics shit.

Creative Assembly used to be awesome, but now they are just all retarded money whores. Another fun thing is when they flat out refused to fix the deep rooted and awful bugs that Rome had just because they wouldn't get paid for them. They also tried to blame the bugs on the Rome Total Realism mod (which everyone always claimed to be better than the original game, because it was).


AND THEN SURPRISE, the Rome expansion fixes the bugs... and they dont release the fixes to normal Rome until over a week after the expansion came out. Thanks for the $30, suckers!